Martin Dietrich, MD, PhD, discusses the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for using MET inhibitors in patients with non–small cell lung cancer and their impact on sequencing therapies.
Martin Dietrich, MD, PhD, discusses the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines for using MET inhibitors in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
MET inhibitors target the MET exon skipping 14 mutation, an oncogenic driver for NSCLC found in 3% to 4% of patients. Capmatinib (Tabrecta) was approved in May 2020 based on the results of the phase 2 Geometry mono-1 trial (NCT02414139) while tepotinib (Tepmetko) was approved in February 2021 based on the results of the phase 2 VISION trial (NCT02864992). MET inhibitors showed a high overall response rate and duration of response in trials.
According to Dietrich, the NCCN guidelines recommend giving a MET inhibitor in the first line in patients with the MET exon skipping 14 mutation and use non-targeted treatments in later lines when the patient’s disease progresses. However, patients may have begun treatment with non-targeted chemoimmunotherapy before the targeted MET inhibitors were approved. Additionally, identifying a MET alteration requires molecular testing with next-generation sequencing (NGS) or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) assay, so the rare mutation may not be identified immediately.
This presents a challenge to following the NCCN guidelines since giving MET inhibitors in the first line is not always possible. Oncologists may be unable to give MET inhibitors in the first line and must decide whether to switch to a MET inhibitor following detection of the biomarker or wait for disease progression, Dietrich says.
TRANSCRIPTION:
0:08 | The NCCN guidelines have a difficult stand with the MET exon 14 mutations because the label and the biology are not necessarily in alignment. The NCCN guidelines recommend the first line usage of targeted inhibition of c-MET. But we oftentimes run into the problem that we are starting a label-appropriate different therapy, oftentimes chemoimmunotherapy with limited effect, and then the transition becomes more difficult upon discovery of c-MET [alteration], are we using an arbitrary transition point? Is there a treatment until progression or unacceptable toxicity and then switching over to a MET inhibitor? The ideal case scenario, and I think this is what the NCCN guidelines are trying to emphasize, is that we are supposed to be using targeted inhibitors in the first-line space and move other therapies backwards and try to deprioritize them if possible.
Peers Discuss Sacituzumab Govitecan in HR+ mBC Post Endocrine Therapy
July 24th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Tiffany A. Traina, MD, surveyed participants on treatment for a patient who had progressed following endocrine therapy for metastatic breast cancer in the first article of a 2-part series.
Read More
Dato-DXd Shows Promise as a More Tolerable ADC in HER2-Negative mBC
July 22nd 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Igor Makhlin, MD, discussed with participants their impressions of datopotamab deruxtecan as therapy for patients with HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer, and the sequential use of multiple antibody-drug conjugates.
Read More
Cretostimogene Grenadenorepvec Shows High CR Rate in BCG-Unresponsive NMIBC
July 17th 2024Mark D. Tyson, II, MD, MPH, discussed treatment with cretostimogene grenadenorepvec in high-risk Bacillus Calmette-Guérin-unresponsive non-muscle invasive bladder cancer with carcinoma in situ and data from the BOND-003 trial.
Read More
Similar Efficacy in Melanoma Shown in Indirect Comparison of PD-1/LAG3 vs PD-1/CTLA-4
July 16th 2024During a Case-Based Roundtable® event, Michael A. Postow, MD, discussed an indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab plus relatlimab vs nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma in the first article of a 2-part series.
Read More