Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Comparative study demonstrates high diagnostic concordance between LBP4 and SP44 c-MET assays in non-small cell lung cancer, highlighting an affordable screening option for targeted therapy.
c-MET is a promising therapeutic target in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This necessitates accurate detection of c-MET aberrations for effective c-MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is widely used to identify c-MET overexpression. SP44 is the most common antibody for c-MET IHC, but LBP4, a novel monoclonal antibody, offers a cost-effective alternative. This study compares LBP4 and SP44 to enhance c-MET IHC accessibility and identify NSCLC patients who may benefit from c-MET TKI therapy. LBP4 and SP44 antibodies were compared in 238 NSCLC cases from West China Hospital, with 73 specimens further analyzed for secondary antibody consistency (Ultraview vs. Optiview). c-MET IHC results were blindly evaluated by 3 pathologists. In addition, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed in 51 savolitinib-treated patients. LBP4 and SP44 antibodies showed high consistency (93.7%, κ=0.908). SP44 demonstrated 97.26% concordance between Ultraview and Optiview (κ=0.9559), while LBP4 achieved 95% concordance (κ=1.0). In savolitinib-treated patients, c-MET IHC 2+/3+ cases had significantly higher OS than IHC 1+ (P=0.0035). LBP4 shows strong concordance with SP44, providing a cost-effective alternative for c-MET IHC. Ultraview secondary antibody performs comparably to Optiview. LBP4 combined with Ultraview effectively identifies NSCLC patients likely to benefit from c-MET TKI therapy, supporting c-MET IHC as a reliable screening tool and promoting its clinical application.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: