ReviewTargeted oncology2025
MET Alterations in Cancer and MET-Targeted Therapy: Detection Strategies, Treatment Efficacy, and Emerging Technologies.
Review in Targeted oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical trials of bispecific antibody therapy for colorectal cancer: advanced and next steps.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Fatal Disease Progression Driven by Acquired MET Amplification After EGFR-TKI Therapy in EGFR- and RBM10-Mutant Lung Adenocarcinoma.Cancer management and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The MET signaling pathway is dysregulated in several cancers through various mechanisms, including gene mutations, amplifications, rearrangements, and protein overexpression. MET inhibitors have demonstrated clinical benefits in solid tumors including non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), highlighting the importance of optimizing MET alteration detection methods and cut-off values to enhance the efficacy of MET-targeted therapies and improve patient outcomes. Research on MET alterations has primarily focused on MET exon 14 skipping mutations, MET amplification, and MET overexpression. This review summarizes the frequency of MET alterations across different cancer types and the clinical validation of MET alterations in MET-targeted therapies, offering a detailed comparison of objective response rates (ORR) for therapies including crizotinib, capmatinib, tepotinib, savolitinib, telisotuzumab vedotin, telisotuzumab adizutecan, and amivantamab. The review also addresses the challenges in detecting MET exon 14 skipping mutations, such as issues with false positives and negatives, and underscores the need for standardization in MET amplification detection. Trials vary in their cut-offs for MET gene copy number (GCN) and MET/CEP7 ratio and MET expression detection methods, leading to inconsistencies in detection. Additionally, emerging technologies such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) and circulating tumor cell (CTC) analyses have been investigated for their potential to improve MET alterations detection. This review also highlights studies that demonstrate the potential of MET ctDNA and CTC analyses to predict treatment responses and identify resistance mechanisms in MET-targeted therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40679792What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.