Predictive and prognostic value of de novo MET expression in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Issue 3 (December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Li, Anna; Niu, Fei-Yu; Han, Jie-Fei; Lou, Na-Na; Yang, Jin-Ji; Zhang, Xu-Chao; Zhou, Qing; Xie, Zhi; Su, Jian; Zhao, Ning; Huang, Ying; Wu, Yi-Long
• Is Part Of: Lung cancer. Volume 90:Issue 3(2015:Dec.)
• Page Start: 375
• Page End: 380
• Publication Date: 2015-12
• Subjects: Non-small-cell lung cancer -- MET -- Chemotherapy; Lungs -- Cancer -- Periodicals; Lung Neoplasms -- Abstracts; Lung Neoplasms -- Periodicals; Poumons -- Cancer -- Périodiques; Lungs -- Cancer; Periodicals; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 616.99424
• DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.10.021
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0169-5002

Abstract

Highlights: We estimate the de novo MET IHC-positive rate was 48.1% in advanced non-small cell lung cancer. Nine patients with lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma had no MET expression. MET expression variant is not associated with the response to chemotherapy in clinical data and in vivo . Abstract: Background: Cellular-mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) protein has recently been identified as a novel target that shows promise for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the relationship between de novo MET expression and patient outcomes remains unclear. Methods: We reviewed the data of patients who had been diagnosed with NSCLC between December 2013 and October 2014. All the patients were evaluated for MET expression status. MET-positive was defined as having an H -score ≥ 60 by immunohistochemistry analysis. MET expression was analyzed in 158 patients who were negative for the common driver genes, including EGFR, ALK, KRAS and ROS1. A chi-squared test was used to assess the clinicopathological parameters. Multivariate analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: MET data were available for analysis in 158 advanced NSCLC patients. Of these, based on the MET H -score criteria, the IHC-positive rate was 48.1% (76/158). There were more patients with adenocarcinoma in the MET-positive group compared with the MET-negative group ( P = 0.01). Nine patients with lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma had no MET expression. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between MET-positive and -negative patients. There was also no significant difference in the efficacy ( Z = −0.44, P = 0.66) or progression free survival (PFS) of first-line chemotherapy between the MET-positive and -negative patients (mPFS 6.8 months [95% CI: 5.4–8.2] vs . 5.9 months [5.5–6.3], P = 0.92). In the cell model, the MET-positive cell showed no difference in chemotherapy but with a increase in percentage of growth inhibition upon treatment with MET inhibitor INC280 compared to MET-negative cell. Conclusion: Our data showed that de novo MET expression was not rare. It was not a predictive or prognostic factor for stage IV NSCLC patients, but this should be confirmed in larger population cohort.