REAL-WORLD EFFECTIVENESS OF TEPOTINIB MONOTHERAPY (TEPOTINIB) VERSUS PEMBROLIZUMAB ± CHEMOTHERAPY (PEMBRO±CT) IN 1L FOR PATIENTS WITH MET EXON 14 SKIPPING ALTERATIONS IN LOCALLY ADVANCED OR METASTATIC NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER IN THE US
Author(s)
Mo Yang, PhD1, Joanna Harton, PhD2, Yun-Ting Yen, PhD3, Chris P. Pescott, MSc, MD4, Amy Phillips, PharmD5, Paul Paik, MD6.
1Director, EMD Serono Inc. - Rockland, MA, Boston, MA, USA, 2Genesis Research Group, Groton, MA, USA, 3Genesis Research Group, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 4Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, 5EMD Serono, Inc., Chattanooga, TN, USA, 6Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
1Director, EMD Serono Inc. - Rockland, MA, Boston, MA, USA, 2Genesis Research Group, Groton, MA, USA, 3Genesis Research Group, New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 4Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, 5EMD Serono, Inc., Chattanooga, TN, USA, 6Thoracic Oncology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate real-world outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 skipping alterations (METex14) treated with tepotinib versus pembro±CT in the first-line (1L) setting.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the ConcertAI PATIENT360™ US database to identify adults with METex14 skipping stage IIIB-IV or advanced/metastatic NSCLC initiating 1L tepotinib or pembro±CT between February 1, 2021 and October 30, 2024. Outcomes included real-world response rate (rwRR), progression-free survival (rwPFS), overall survival (rwOS), time to discontinuation (rwTTD), and time to next treatment (rwTTNT). Propensity score weighting was applied to balance baseline characteristics. Time-to-event outcomes were analyzed using weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: Among 273 eligible patients, 62 received tepotinib (24 in 1L). Baseline characteristics were balanced after propensity score weighting with an effective sample size for pembro±CT of 15.09. Median follow-up (months) was 12.0 (2.5, 32.4) for tepotinib vs 18.2 (0.6, 40.0) for pembro±CT. The rwRR was comparable for tepotinib (0.53 [95% CI: 0.30-0.75]) vs pembro±CT (0.49 [0.21-0.77]; p=0.85). Median rwOS was 18.0 (12.2, not estimable [NE]) vs 18.3 (18.1-NE) months (HR: 0.78 [0.31-1.93]; p=0.59), and median rwPFS was 13.3 (3.4, NE) for tepotinib vs 4.9 (3.4-22.2) months (HR: 1.59 [0.72-3.49]; p=0.25) for pembro±CT. Tepotinib was associated with numerically longer rwTTD (6.8 [5.3, 17.7] vs 3.8 [2.3, 5.6] months) and rwTTNT (20.7 [6.4, NE] vs 4.4 [3.8, 17.2] months).
CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were observed between tepotinib and pembro±CT across outcomes. Tepotinib showed comparable rwRR, numerically longer rwPFS and treatment persistence, and similar rwOS vs pembro±CT. Overall, effectiveness was comparable, supporting tepotinib as an effective and clinically meaningful 1L option in METex14 skipping NSCLC. Limitations include small, weighted samples, disproportionate follow-up, missing data, response assessment variability, and limited generalizability.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used the ConcertAI PATIENT360™ US database to identify adults with METex14 skipping stage IIIB-IV or advanced/metastatic NSCLC initiating 1L tepotinib or pembro±CT between February 1, 2021 and October 30, 2024. Outcomes included real-world response rate (rwRR), progression-free survival (rwPFS), overall survival (rwOS), time to discontinuation (rwTTD), and time to next treatment (rwTTNT). Propensity score weighting was applied to balance baseline characteristics. Time-to-event outcomes were analyzed using weighted Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models.
RESULTS: Among 273 eligible patients, 62 received tepotinib (24 in 1L). Baseline characteristics were balanced after propensity score weighting with an effective sample size for pembro±CT of 15.09. Median follow-up (months) was 12.0 (2.5, 32.4) for tepotinib vs 18.2 (0.6, 40.0) for pembro±CT. The rwRR was comparable for tepotinib (0.53 [95% CI: 0.30-0.75]) vs pembro±CT (0.49 [0.21-0.77]; p=0.85). Median rwOS was 18.0 (12.2, not estimable [NE]) vs 18.3 (18.1-NE) months (HR: 0.78 [0.31-1.93]; p=0.59), and median rwPFS was 13.3 (3.4, NE) for tepotinib vs 4.9 (3.4-22.2) months (HR: 1.59 [0.72-3.49]; p=0.25) for pembro±CT. Tepotinib was associated with numerically longer rwTTD (6.8 [5.3, 17.7] vs 3.8 [2.3, 5.6] months) and rwTTNT (20.7 [6.4, NE] vs 4.4 [3.8, 17.2] months).
CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences were observed between tepotinib and pembro±CT across outcomes. Tepotinib showed comparable rwRR, numerically longer rwPFS and treatment persistence, and similar rwOS vs pembro±CT. Overall, effectiveness was comparable, supporting tepotinib as an effective and clinically meaningful 1L option in METex14 skipping NSCLC. Limitations include small, weighted samples, disproportionate follow-up, missing data, response assessment variability, and limited generalizability.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-11, ISPOR Europe 2026, Vienna, Austria
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue 12S
Code
CO122
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
Oncology, Respiratory-Related Disorders (Allergy, Asthma, Smoking, Other Respiratory)