Loading
Life sciences · Journal article
New England Journal of Medicine · October 24, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Journal article.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
BackgroundPatients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer have poor outcomes, with a median overall survival of approximately 12 to 13 months. Tarlatamab (a bispecific T-cell engager targeting delta-like ligand 3 [DLL3] and CD3) was previously shown to improve survival as second-line therapy. Whether adding tarlatamab to durvalumab (an anti–programmed death ligand 1 agent) after initial chemoimmunotherapy could significantly improve survival in the context of maintenance therapy after first remission has been unclear. MethodsIn this phase 3, international, open-label, randomized trial, we compared tarlatamab–durvalumab with durvalumab as first-line maintenance therapy in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer without progression after initial chemoimmunotherapy. Overall survival and progression-free survival were assessed from randomization at the start of maintenance therapy as the primary and key secondary end points, respectively. Results of the prespecified interim analysis (data-cutoff date, July 7, 2026) are reported here. ResultsA total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive tarlatamab–durvalumab (282 patients) or durvalumab (281 patients). At a median follow-up of 15.9 months in the tarlatamab–durvalumab group and 16.1 months in the durvalumab group, the estimated median overall survival was 21.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.8 to could not be estimated) with tarlatamab–durvalumab and 12.7 months (95% CI, 11.2 to 14.8) with durvalumab (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.54; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.1) with tarlatamab–durvalumab and 1.9 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 2.0) with durvalumab (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.42; P<0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 46.8% of the patients who received tarlatamab–durvalumab and in 40.6% of those who received durvalumab alone. Cytokine release syndrome, mainly of grade 1 or 2, was seen in nearly half the patients receiving tarlatamab–durvalumab. ConclusionsTarlatamab–durvalumab maintenance therapy resulted in significantly longer overall survival and progression-free survival than durvalumab alone among patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. (Funded by Amgen and AstraZeneca; DeLLphi-305 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT06211036.)