Cited by 118Lung Cancer Treatments and MutationsHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchCancer Genomics and Diagnostics

Clonal MET Amplification as a Determinant of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Resistance in Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor–Mutant Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Lai, Gillianne G.Y., Lim, Tse Hui, Lim, John, Liew, Perry J.R., Kwang, Xue Lin, Nahar, Rahul, Aung, Zaw Win, Takano, Angela +27 more·2019·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: MET activation has been implicated as an oncogenic driver in epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR )–mutant non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and can mediate primary and secondary resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). High copy number thresholds have been suggested to enrich for response to MET inhibitors. We examined the clinical relevance of MET copy number gain (CNG) in the setting of treatment-naive metastatic EGFR -mutant–positive NSCLC. Patients and Methods: MET fluorescence in situ hybridization was performed in 200 consecutive patients identified as metastatic treatment-naïve EGFR -mutant–positive. We defined MET -high as CNG greater than or equal to 5, with an additional criterion of MET /centromeric portion of chromosome 7 ratiο greater than or equal to 2 for amplification. Time-to-treatment failure (TTF) to EGFR TKI in patients identified as MET -high and -low was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank test. Multiregion single-nucleotide polymorphism array analysis was performed on 13 early-stage resected EGFR -mutant–positive NSCLC across 59 sectors to investigate intratumoral heterogeneity of MET CNG. Results: Fifty-two (26%) of 200 patients in the metastatic cohort were MET -high at diagnosis; 46 (23%) had polysomy and six (3%) had amplification. Median TTF was 12.2 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 22.6 months) versus 13.1 months (95% CI, 10.6 to 15.0 months) for MET -high and -low, respectively ( P = .566), with no significant difference in response rate regardless of copy number thresholds. Loss of MET was observed in three of six patients identified as MET -high who underwent postprogression biopsies, which is consistent with marked intratumoral heterogeneity in MET CNG observed in early-stage tumors. Suboptimal response (TTF, 1.0 to 6.4 months) to EGFR TKI was observed in patients with coexisting MET amplification (five [3.2%] of 154). Conclusion: Although up to 26% of TKI-naïve EGFR- mutant–positive NSCLC harbor high MET CNG by fluorescence in situ hybridization, this did not significantly affect response to TKI, except in patients identified as MET -amplified. Our data underscore the limitations of adopting arbitrary copy number thresholds and the need for cross-assay validation to define therapeutically tractable MET pathway dysregulation in EGFR -mutant–positive NSCLC.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.18.00177

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lai, G. G. Y., Lim, T. H., Lim, J., Liew, P. J. R., Kwang, X. L., Nahar, R., Aung, Z. W., Takano, A., Lee, Y. Y., Lau, D. P. X., Tan, G. S., Tan, S. H., Tan, W. L., Ang, M.-K., Toh, C. K., Tan, B. S., Devanand, A., Too, C. W., Gogna, A., Ong, B. H., Koh, T. P. T., Kanesvaran, R., Ng, Q. S., Jain, A., Rajasekaran, T., Yuan, J., Lim, T. K. H., Lim, A. S. T., Hillmer, A. M., Lim, W. T., Iyer, N. G., Tam, W. L., Zhai, W., Tan, E.-H., & Tan, D. S. W.
Affiliations
  • National Cancer Centre Singapore (SG)
  • Singapore General Hospital (SG)
  • Genome Institute of Singapore (SG)
  • Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
  • National Heart Centre Singapore (SG)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2019-04-10
Volume
37
Issue
11
Pages
876-884
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2911927138
Cited by
118
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 16
FWCI
13.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Society of Clinical Oncology
  • Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Lung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › HER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Keywords
MET amplification, EGFR-mutant non-small cell lung cancer, EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance, copy number gain, intratumoral heterogeneity, time to treatment failure, MET inhibitors, metastatic lung cancer, early-stage lung cancer, single nucleotide polymorphism array, fluorescence in situ hybridization, clonal amplification
MeSH terms
Antineoplastic Agents, Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung, Gene Amplification, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Mutation, Predictive Value of Tests, Retrospective Studies, Biomarkers, Tumor, Reproducibility of Results, Databases, Factual, In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence, Gene Dosage, Genetic Heterogeneity, Drug Resistance, Neoplasm, Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-met, Cell Line, Tumor, Protein Kinase Inhibitors, ErbB Receptors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review