Second-Line Pharmacological Interventions for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in MetEX14 Skipping Patients: A Systematic Literature Review
Author(s)
Costa B1, Alves C2, Mendes D3, Penedones A4, Silverio N5, Vioix H6, Batel Marques F4
1Clevidence, Porto Salvo, Portugal, 2University of Coimbra, Faculty of Pharmacy, Laboratory of Social Pharmacy and Public Health, Coimbra, 06, Portugal, 3University of Coimbra, Faculty of Pharmacy, Laboratory of Social Pharmacy and Public Health, Porto Salvo, Portugal, 4University of Coimbra, Faculty of Pharmacy, Laboratory of Social Pharmacy and Public Health, Coimbra, Portugal, 5Merck S.A., Alges, Portugal; an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany., Portugal, Alges, Lisbon, Portugal, 6Evidence and Value Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, HE, Germany
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES:
This systematic review aims to identify studies assessing pharmacological interventions in adult patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with METex14 skipping alterations who require systemic therapy following prior treatment with immunotherapy and/or platinum-based chemotherapy.METHODS:
Longitudinal studies evaluating MET inhibitors, chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy on previously treated METex14 altered aNSCLC were searched in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases (May 2024). Studies including >50% of patients on second-line treatment or beyond (2L+) were eligible for inclusion. The outcomes analysed were overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR).RESULTS:
Ten studies were identified: 4 non-controlled clinical trials (CTs), 2 real-world data (RWD) studies on MET-inhibitors (tepotinib in CTs; capmatinib and crizotinib in both CTs and RWD studies), and 4 RWD studies on immunotherapy. Sample sizes ranged between 25-149 patients in CTs and 22-54 patients in RWD studies. In CTs, median OS (months) was 19.3 with tepotinib and 9.5-20.5 with crizotinib.1-3 OS was not reported for capmatinib.4 Median PFS (months) was 11.0 with tepotinib, 5.4 with capmatinib, and 3.6-7.3 with crizotinib. ORR was 45% with tepotinib, 40.6% with capmatinib, and 12%-32% with crizotinib.1-4 In RWD studies, median OS (months) was 17.2 with capmatinib, 13.7 with crizotinib, and 13.4-19.3 with immunotherapy.5-10 Median PFS (months) was 1.9-4.9 with immunotherapy.7-10 ORR was 50% with capmatinib, 31% with crizotinib, and 17%-35.7% with immunotherapy.5-10CONCLUSIONS:
In CTs, OS was numerically higher in the VISION-trial (tepotinib) than in the AcSé-trial (crizotinib) and comparable to the finding in PROFILE-1001-trial (crizotinib), but the latter included first-line patients (38%), whereas the first two only included 2L+ patients. PFS and ORR were numerically higher with tepotinib than with other MET-inhibitors. Only phase II CTs are available for decision-making and evidence from RWD studies is scarce, with immunotherapy not bringing additional benefit for the MetEx14 population.Conference/Value in Health Info
Value in Health, Volume 27, Issue 12, S2 (December 2024)
Code
CO51
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Clinician Reported Outcomes
Disease
Oncology, Personalized & Precision Medicine