Consistency of c‐Met protein overexpression over time in patients with non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer
Rattachement africain : fr, us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
AIMS: The c-Met signalling pathway is dysregulated in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), with c-Met protein overexpression emerging as a potentially actionable biomarker given the development of c-Met-targeted antibody-drug conjugates. This retrospective study assessed the consistency of c-Met protein overexpression over time in patients with non-squamous NSCLC and two or more longitudinal biopsy samples (one before treatment, one post-treatment). METHODS AND RESULTS: Samples from 160 patients were analysed for c-Met protein expression. The concordance rate for c-Met protein overexpression between samples was 81.3%, indicating most patients had consistent expression status. Patients with an EGFR mutation had a lower concordance rate (65.8%). Fourteen patients with high discordance (negative to positive) between sampling time points showed a high frequency of oncogenic driver alterations, hence often received targeted therapy before the second sample and had high percentages of cells at 2+ intensity in c-Met immunohistochemistry before treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate c-Met protein overexpression can be assessed before or after treatment since most patients maintain consistent c-Met status. As targeted therapies may elevate c-Met overexpression over time, retesting may be necessary in those with an oncogenic driver alteration initially diagnosed as c-Met negative.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Consistency of c‐Met protein overexpression over time in patients with non‐squamous non‐small cell lung cancer
- Date Crossref
- 09/06/2026
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.