Search

Abstract Background The c‐MET protein, encoded by the mesenchymal‐epithelial transition factor (MET) gene, can regulate cell proliferation, migration and invasion. Studies have shown that it is one of the essential driver genes for non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Currently, several clinical studies have carried out objective assessments on the efficacy and safety of different types of MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). However, direct cross‐sectional comparisons between different agents are still not available. Methods Our study was a single‐center retrospective clinical study, which collected the data from MET positive NSCLC patients treated with MET TKIs at the Lung Cancer Center of Peking Union Medical College Hospital. We explored the efficacy and safety of crizotinib versus savolitinib in patients with METex14 skipping and MET amplification, separately. Results Patients with METex14 skipping (median PFS = 10.7 months) had a better clinical response to MET TKIs than MET amplification patients (median PFS = 4.1 months). In the METex14 skipping subgroup, savolitinib did not show better survival benefit with significance than crizotinib (p > 0.05). In the MET amplification subgroup, savolitinib (median PFS = 7.1 months) demonstrated a better progression‐free survival benefit than crizotinib (median PFS = 1.4 months), p = 0.05. The most common adverse effects of both MET TKIs were peripheral edema (41.2%), gastrointestinal reactions (23.5%), and liver injury (14.7%). The incidence rate of peripheral edema was higher in savolitinib than crizotinib. Conclusion In METex14 skipping NSCLC patients, the efficacy of savolitinib and crizotinib did not show significant difference. In MET amplification patients, savolitinib showed better efficacy than crizotinib.

Background: The c‐MET protein, encoded by the mesenchymal‐epithelial transition factor (MET) gene, can regulate cell proliferation, migration and invasion. Studies have shown that it is one of the essential driver genes for non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Currently, several clinical studies have carried out objective assessments on the efficacy and safety of different types of MET tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). However, direct cross‐sectional comparisons between different agents are still not available. Methods: Our study was a single‐center retrospective clinical study, which collected the data from MET positive NSCLC patients treated with MET TKIs at the Lung Cancer Center of Peking Union Medical College Hospital. We explored the efficacy and safety of crizotinib versus savolitinib in patients with METex14 skipping and MET amplification, separately. Results: Patients with METex14 skipping (median PFS = 10.7 months) had a better clinical response to MET TKIs than MET amplification patients (median PFS = 4.1 months). In the METex14 skipping subgroup, savolitinib did not show better survival benefit with significance than crizotinib (p > 0.05). In the MET amplification subgroup, savolitinib (median PFS = 7.1 months) demonstrated a better progression‐free survival benefit than crizotinib (median PFS = 1.4 months), p = 0.05. The most common adverse effects of both MET TKIs were peripheral edema (41.2%), gastrointestinal reactions (23.5%), and liver injury (14.7%). The incidence rate of peripheral edema was higher in savolitinib than crizotinib. Conclusion: In METex14 skipping NSCLC patients, the efficacy of savolitinib and crizotinib did not show significant difference. In MET amplification patients, savolitinib showed better efficacy than crizotinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]