SynthesisScientific reports2026
Efficacy and safety of tepotinib in MET‑altered non‑small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
MET exon 14 skipping mutations (METex14) or amplification drives a subset of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Tepotinib, a selective MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), has shown promise in early trials; however, comparative efficacy and safety data across MET-altered subpopulations remain limited. This systematic review of six studies (546 patients) assessed the clinical outcomes of Tepotinib in METex14 or MET-amplified NSCLC. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. The pooled objective response rate (ORR) was 52% (95% CI: 48–56%) and a disease control rate (DCR) of 76% (95% CI: 72–80%). Median PFS was 10.16 months, and median OS was 14.67 months. Subgroup analyses revealed no significant differences in ORR between METex14 (52%) and MET amplification (53%, p = 0.905) or between monotherapy (51%) and combination therapy (56%, p = 0.242). Common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were grade 1–2 peripheral edema (50%) and diarrhea (36%); grade ≥ 3 TRAEs were infrequent (8% for edema). In conclusion, Tepotinib demonstrated comparable efficacy in METex14 and MET-amplified NSCLC with a manageable safety profile. The PFS benefit of combination therapy warrants further randomized trials. These findings support Tepotinib as a valuable therapeutic option for MET-altered NSCLC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.