Real-world outcomes comparison between the MET inhibitors (METi) capmatinib and tepotinib in patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with MET exon 14 skipping mutation.
Authors: Guilherme Sacchi de Camargo Correia, Yanyan Lou, Yujie Zhao, Shenduo Li, Vinicius Ernani, Konstantinos Leventakos, Aaron Scott Mansfield, Kaushal Parikh, Anastasios Dimou, Rami Manochakian
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2024)

e20588 Background: MET exon 14 skipping mutations are seen in about 3% of patients (pts) with NSCLC, with 2 FDA approved METi for pts with stage IV NSCLC harboring it. Besides the original clinical trials, there is a paucity of real-world data about their outcomes, and adverse events (AE). Our aim was to compare and analyze the utilization of capmatinib (cap) and tepotinib (tep) in this population. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of the electronic medical records of all pts with stage IV NSCLC treated with METi between the date of FDA-accelerated approval of these drugs, 5/6/20 for cap and 2/3/21 for tep, and 12/1/23. All pts were treated at the Mayo Clinic Health System. We collected data about baseline characteristics, diagnosis, AE, and outcomes. Chi-squared test was used to compare the frequency of AE, while Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median progression free survival (mPFS). Results: A total of 49 pts were treated with METi. Cap was used in 45 pts, 14 received tep, and 10 pts received both, with tep following cap. In the cap group, median age of diagnosis was 74 years (y), 42.22% were male, and the median number of previous lines of therapy (mPLT) was 0. In the tep group, median age of diagnosis was 72 y, 21.43% were male, and the mPLT was 2. Median ECOG at the time of diagnosis was 1 in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between AE in both groups. Peripheral edema occurred in 75.56% pts who received cap, and in 64.29% with tep (p = 0.41). Pneumonitis happened in 4.44% with cap, and 7.14% with tep (p = 0.69). Creatinine elevation was seen in 37.78% with cap, while 42.86% with tep (p = 0.73), grade 3 elevation was seen in 5.88% and 16.67% respectively. Abnormality in liver function tests occurred in 35.56% of pts in the cap group, and 28.57% in the tep group (p = 0.63), grade 3/4 abnormality occurred in 31.25% and 0% respectively. Finally, pancreatic enzymes elevation was seen in 33.33% of patients in each group (p = 0.67), with none being grade 3/4. Cap was discontinued in 20% of pts due to AE, while it happened in 28.57% of pts with tep. Dose reduction happened in 64.44% of pts who received cap, and 42.86% who received tep. The mPFS was 12.03 months (m) in the cap group, and 8.94 m in the tep group, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). Similarly, the mPFS in those treated with tep following cap was 8.94 m. Conclusions: We performed the first real-word comparison between cap and tep. The results demonstrated similar outcomes with both drugs, and no significant differences in AE, suggesting these agents can be employed equivalently. Importantly, rates of therapy discontinuation and dose reduction were high with both, indicating the importance of closely monitoring these pts. The retrospective nature and small sample size are initial limitations that can be overcome with future multi-centric prospective studies.