Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Retrospective analysis reveals c-Met overexpression impacts prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer, suggesting biomarker potential.
Background and purpose: c-Met (also known as MET) protein is encoded by the MET proto-oncogene. In non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), c-Met protein overexpression (OE) drives tumorigenesis and is a therapeutic target, given recent US Food and Drug Administration approval of telisotuzumab vedotin-tllv. This retrospective analysis of tumor samples and clinical data from real-world patients with non-squamous NSCLC characterized the prevalence of c-Met protein OE, its association with messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) expression, MET gene amplification, programmed-death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, and its impact on prognosis. Patients and methods: A patient cohort was selected for manual abstraction of clinical data from electronic health records. Patients were selected based on the availability of sufficient remnant tissue for biomarker analyses, including c-Met immunohistochemistry (IHC). Comparative assessments were conducted for c-Met protein expression by IHC, MET gene amplification, mRNA expression, and PD-L1 expression levels by IHC. Results: In total, 305 and 84 patients were included in the biomarker prevalence and outcome analyses, respectively. Overall, c-Met protein OE was detected in 25% of tissue samples. Of the 212 samples with fluorescence in situ hybridization data, MET amplification was seen in 9%. Concordance of c-Met protein OE with MET mRNA levels was observed with area under the concentration-time curve values of 0.738 and 0.736 in MET OE or MET high OE, respectively, using Receiver Operating Characteristic analysis. c-Met protein OE was associated with poor prognosis (unadjusted hazard ratio for death of 2.04). Interpretation: These data suggest that c-Met protein OE is associated with MET mRNA expression, shows limited overlap with other MET aberrations, and may be linked to poor prognosis in NSCLC.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: