MET-Mutationen bei NSCLC: Vergleichende Analyse von Behandlungsstrategien

Background: Mesenchymal to epithelial transition factor (MET) dysregulation in non-small-cell-lung-cancer (NSCLC) is understudied, with scant data on treatment outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively examined 160 NSCLC patients: 125 with primary MET mutations (further classified into MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping mutations and primary MET amplifications) and 35 with secondary MET amplifications. Patients underwent varied treatments: Chemotherapy, Immune monotherapy, Crizotinib, or Savolitinib. Secondary MET amplification patients were grouped by treatment: Group A (Class Ib MET-TKI with third-generation EGFR-TKI), Group B (Crizotinib with first-generation EGFR-TKI), and Group C (Crizotinib alone). One hundred and thirty patients have completed the whole treatment process. Their data were included in the study’s survival analysis (included 95 patients with primary MET mutations and 35 patients with secondary MET amplifications). Results: Among METex14 skipping mutations patients (n = 57), median progression free survival (PFS) was: Chemotherapy 7.64 m, Crizotinib 8.5 m, Savolitinib 9.3 m, and Immunotherapy 3.87 m. Targeted therapies and chemotherapy significantly outperformed Immunotherapy. Sub-group analysis indicated splice donor region mutations benefited more than those at the polypyrimidine tract (9.23 m vs. 4.03 m, P = 0.038). For primary MET amplifications (n = 38), PFS was: Chemotherapy 2.84 m, Crizotinib 3.80 m, Savolitinib 5.23 m, and Immunotherapy 3.30 m. Patients with copy number (CN) > 5 had longer PFS than CN ≤ 5 (5.17 m vs. 3.44 m, P = 0.039). In secondary MET amplifications (n = 35), Group A and B had similar PFS (6.77 m and 6.57 m) versus Group C (3.13 m). Dual-target therapy PFS showed no difference between CN ≤ 5 and CN > 5 (8.63 m vs. 6.27 m, P = 0.29).

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Kompass Onkologie
Published
2025-05-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1159/000545999
Primary Topic
Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

MET-Mutationen bei NSCLC: Vergleichende Analyse von Behandlungsstrategien

Susanne Otto, Wolfgang Schütte
Kompass Onkologie
Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
article

MET-Mutationen bei NSCLC: Vergleichende Analyse von Behandlungsstrategien

Susanne Otto, Wolfgang Schütte
article en

Abstract

Background: Mesenchymal to epithelial transition factor (MET) dysregulation in non-small-cell-lung-cancer (NSCLC) is understudied, with scant data on treatment outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively examined 160 NSCLC patients: 125 with primary MET mutations (further classified into MET exon 14 (METex14) skipping mutations and primary MET amplifications) and 35 with secondary MET amplifications. Patients underwent varied treatments: Chemotherapy, Immune monotherapy, Crizotinib, or Savolitinib. Secondary MET amplification patients were grouped by treatment: Group A (Class Ib MET-TKI with third-generation EGFR-TKI), Group B (Crizotinib with first-generation EGFR-TKI), and Group C (Crizotinib alone). One hundred and thirty patients have completed the whole treatment process. Their data were included in the study’s survival analysis (included 95 patients with primary MET mutations and 35 patients with secondary MET amplifications). Results: Among METex14 skipping mutations patients (n = 57), median progression free survival (PFS) was: Chemotherapy 7.64 m, Crizotinib 8.5 m, Savolitinib 9.3 m, and Immunotherapy 3.87 m. Targeted therapies and chemotherapy significantly outperformed Immunotherapy. Sub-group analysis indicated splice donor region mutations benefited more than those at the polypyrimidine tract (9.23 m vs. 4.03 m, P = 0.038). For primary MET amplifications (n = 38), PFS was: Chemotherapy 2.84 m, Crizotinib 3.80 m, Savolitinib 5.23 m, and Immunotherapy 3.30 m. Patients with copy number (CN) > 5 had longer PFS than CN ≤ 5 (5.17 m vs. 3.44 m, P = 0.039). In secondary MET amplifications (n = 35), Group A and B had similar PFS (6.77 m and 6.57 m) versus Group C (3.13 m). Dual-target therapy PFS showed no difference between CN ≤ 5 and CN > 5 (8.63 m vs. 6.27 m, P = 0.29).

Kompass OnkologieVol. 12(2)
Martha-Maria Hospital (DE), Krankenhaus Mara
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.