Search

Purpose:MET-deregulated NSCLC represents an urgent clinical need because of unfavorable prognosis and lack of specific therapies. Although recent studies have suggested a potential role for crizotinib in patients harboring MET amplification or exon 14 mutations, no conclusive data are currently available. This study aimed at investigating activity of crizotinib in patients harboring MET or ROS1 alterations.Patients and Methods:Patients with pretreated advanced NSCLC and evidence of ROS1 rearrangements (cohort A) or MET deregulation (amplification, ratio MET/CEP7 >2.2 or MET exon 14 mutations, cohort B) were treated with crizotinib 250 mg twice daily orally. The coprimary endpoint was objective response rate in the two cohorts.Results:From December 2014 to March 2017, 505 patients were screened and a total of 52 patients (26 patients per cohort) were enrolled onto the study. At data cutoff of September 2017, in cohort A, objective response rate was 65%, and median progression-free survival and overall survival were 22.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 15.2–30.3] and not reached, respectively. In cohort B, objective response rate was 27%, median progression-free survival was 4.4 months (95% CI 3.0–5.8), and overall survival was 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.2–6.5). No difference in any clinical endpoint was observed between MET-amplified and exon 14–mutated patients. No response was observed among the 5 patients with cooccurrence of a second gene alteration. No unexpected toxicity was observed in both cohorts.Conclusions:Crizotinib induces response in a fraction of MET-deregulated NSCLC. Additional studies and innovative therapies are urgently needed.

Supplementary information of the manuscript Table S1. Outcome to prior therapy in cohort A and cohort B Table S2. Response according to molecular profile in Cohort A Table S3. Response according to molecular profile in Cohort B Tables S4. Efficacy outcome according to type of MET deregulation Table S5. Adverse events (AEs) in Cohort A and Cohort B Table S6. List of serious adverse events (SAE) as reported by investigators Table S7. List of all participating Institutions

AimsGene fusions assays are key for personalised treatments of advanced human cancers. Their implementation on cytological material requires a preliminary validation that may make use of cell line slides mimicking cytological samples. In this international multi-institutional study, gene fusion reference standards were developed and validated.MethodsCell lines harbouringEML4(13)–ALK(20) andSLC34A2(4)–ROS1(32) gene fusions were adopted to prepare reference standards. Eight laboratories (five adopting amplicon-based and three hybridisation-based platforms) received, at different dilution points two sets of slides (slide A 50.0%, slide B 25.0%, slide C 12.5% and slide D wild type) stained by Papanicolaou (Pap) and May Grunwald Giemsa (MGG). Analysis was carried out on a total of 64 slides.ResultsFour (50.0%) out of eight laboratories reported results on all slides and dilution points. While 12 (37.5%) out of 32 MGG slides were inadequate, 27 (84.4%) out of 32 Pap slides produced libraries adequate for variant calling. The laboratories using hybridisation-based platforms showed the highest rate of inadequate results (13/24 slides, 54.2%). Conversely, only 10.0% (4/40 slides) of inadequate results were reported by laboratories adopting amplicon-based platforms.ConclusionsReference standards in cytological format yield better results when Pap staining and processed by amplicon-based assays. Further investigation is required to optimise these standards for MGG stained cells and for hybridisation-based approaches.