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.

Gene fusions have a pivotal role in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) precision medicine. Several techniques can be used, from fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry to next generation sequencing (NGS). Although several NGS panels are available, gene fusion testing presents more technical challenges than other variants. This is a PubMed-based narrative review aiming to summarize NGS approaches for gene fusion analysis and their performance on NSCLC clinical samples. The analysis can be performed at DNA or RNA levels, using different target enrichment (hybrid-capture or amplicon-based) and sequencing chemistries, with both custom and commercially available panels. DNA sequencing evaluates different alteration types simultaneously, but large introns and repetitive sequences can impact on the performance and it does not discriminate between expressed and unexpressed gene fusions. RNA-based targeted approach analyses and quantifies directly fusion transcripts and is more accurate than DNA panels on tumor tissue, but it can be limited by RNA quality and quantity. On liquid biopsy, satisfying data have been published on circulating tumor DNA hybrid-capture panels. There is not a perfect method for gene fusion analysis, but NGS approaches, though still needing a complete standardization and optimization, present several advantages for the clinical practice.

No abstract

No abstract

on the application of a panel including positive (mesothelial-related) and negative markers with greater than 80% sensitivity and specificity, which need to be selected based on morphology and clinical information.Moreover, in challenging cases, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) testing for the p16 deletion and IHC to evaluate the loss of BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1) expression could be useful in distinguishing benign from malignant pleural proliferations.