Purpose:

Tepotinib is an oral, potent, highly selective MET inhibitor. This first-in-man phase I trial investigated the MTD of tepotinib to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D).

Patients and Methods:

Patients received tepotinib orally according to one of three dose escalation regimens (R) on a 21-day cycle: R1, 30–400 mg once daily for 14 days; R2, 30–315 mg once daily 3 times/week; or R3, 300–1,400 mg once daily. After two cycles, treatment could continue in patients with stable disease until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was incidence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE). Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor effects.

Results:

One hundred and forty-nine patients received tepotinib (R1: n = 42; R2: n = 45; R3: n = 62). Although six patients reported DLTs [one patient in R1 (115 mg), three patients in R2 (60, 100, 130 mg), two patients in R3 (1,000, 1,400 mg)], the MTD was not reached at the highest tested dose of 1,400 mg daily. The RP2D of tepotinib was established as 500 mg once daily, supported by translational modeling data as sufficient to achieve ≥95% MET inhibition in ≥90% of patients. Treatment-related TEAEs were mostly grade 1 or 2 fatigue, peripheral edema, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, and lipase increase. The best overall response in R3 was partial response in two patients, both with MET overexpression.

Conclusions:

Tepotinib was well tolerated with clinical activity in MET-dysregulated tumors. The RP2D of tepotinib was established as 500 mg once daily. MET abnormalities can drive tumorigenesis. This first-in-man trial demonstrated that the potent, highly selective MET inhibitor tepotinib can reduce or stabilize tumor burden and is well tolerated at doses up to 1,400 mg once daily. An RP2D of 500 mg once daily, as determined from translational modeling and simulation integrating human population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data in tumor biopsies, is being used in ongoing clinical trials.

Translational Relevance

Tepotinib is a potent, highly selective MET inhibitor. In this first-in-man trial, tepotinib was shown to be well tolerated and active against solid tumors, particularly those expressing high levels of MET. Tepotinib proved well tolerated up to the highest dose administered (1,400 mg once daily), while a recommended phase II dose of 500 mg once daily was defined based on a translational modeling approach integrating preclinical pharmacokinetic, target modulation, and efficacy data, along with clinical pharmacokinetic and tumor target modulation data. Taken together, the results support exploring tepotinib for the treatment of patients with non–small cell lung cancer whose tumors are either driven by MET alterations, including MET exon 14-skipping, or in which MET is implicated in secondary resistance to EGFR inhibitors.

MET receptor tyrosine kinase activation increases cellular proliferation, survival, mobilization, and invasive capacity (1, 2). Chronic MET activation in advanced solid tumors occurs via mechanisms including activating MET mutations (3), MET amplification (4), and overexpression of MET or its ligand hepatocyte growth factor (HGF; refs. 5, 6). Activated MET can drive tumorigenesis (7) and make tumors resistant to EGFR inhibitors, VEGF inhibitors, and anti-human EGFR-2 therapies (1). Tumor MET activity is also associated with aggressive cancer phenotypes (8) and poor prognosis (9, 10). MET inhibitors may, therefore, have a role in cancer therapy (11, 12).

Tepotinib is an oral, highly selective and potent MET inhibitor that inhibits MET phosphorylation and downstream signaling. The 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of MET was determined as 1.7 nmol/L, and screening against >400 kinases showed high selectivity of tepotinib for MET. Tepotinib inhibits both HGF-dependent and independent MET kinase activity, providing greater suppression of MET signaling than inhibitors of only ligand-dependent activity (13). In preclinical studies, tepotinib inhibited the growth of MET-dependent human xenograft tumors and cancer explants (14–17). This phase I first-in-man study was conducted to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of tepotinib in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Study design and treatment

This open-label, nonrandomized, dose escalation phase I trial in patients with advanced solid tumors (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01014936) was conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Council for Harmonisation Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, and all applicable regulatory requirements. The Institutional Review Board for each site approved the study and all patients provided written informed consent to participate.

Dose escalation used a classic 3 + 3 design. Patients received one of three tepotinib regimens (R) on a 21-day cycle (Fig. 1A). Patients were alternately assigned to R1 or R2 until R3 was introduced based on emerging clinical data from the trial, when R1 was discontinued and patients were alternately assigned to R2 or R3. Dose escalation was guided by the occurrence of dose limiting toxicity (DLT) and grade 2 clinically relevant treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE). If no grade ≥2 TEAEs were observed, 100% dose increments were applied; otherwise, lesser increments were applied. Patients received tepotinib until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. After dose escalation, an additional cohort of 12 patients with MET amplification and a cohort of 12 patients with MET overexpression were enrolled at the RP2D.

Figure 1.

Clinical study patient allocation and pharmacokinetic modeling. A, Patient allocations and regimens. B, Workflow of pharmacokinetic model development. FIM, first-in-man; PD, pharmacodynamic; PK, pharmacokinetic.

Figure 1.

Clinical study patient allocation and pharmacokinetic modeling. A, Patient allocations and regimens. B, Workflow of pharmacokinetic model development. FIM, first-in-man; PD, pharmacodynamic; PK, pharmacokinetic.

Close modal

Tepotinib was supplied in three formulations: nonmicronized in capsules [initial formulation (IF)]; micronized in capsules [optimized formulation (OF)]; and micronized in tablet form. Patients received one type of formulation (micronized or nonmicronized), with their daily dose comprising multiple capsules or tablets of 15 mg to 100 mg to reach the required dose. The tablet formulation was given exclusively to patients in R3.

The primary objective was to determine the MTD of tepotinib for each regimen in patients with solid tumors. Secondary objectives included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity of tepotinib. If it was determined impossible or unnecessary to establish an MTD in a given regimen, an RP2D would be established.

Patients

Patients had measurable or evaluable solid tumors, either refractory to standard therapy or for which no effective standard therapy was available, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0–2, and adequate hematologic, liver, and renal function. MET status was not used for initial recruitment, while patients in the RP2D expansion cohort (R3) required either MET amplification or MET overexpression. Patients who had received systemic anticancer therapy within 28 days of trial treatment or prior radiotherapy to >30% of bone marrow were ineligible. See Supplementary Information for full inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Assessments

Patients were monitored for toxicity throughout the trial. TEAEs were graded using the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) v4.0. A DLT was defined as one of the following TEAEs observed during cycle 1, regardless of tepotinib relationship: grade 4 neutropenia >7 days; grade ≥3 febrile neutropenia for >1 day; grade 4 thrombocytopenia or grade 3 with bleeding; grade ≥3 nausea and vomiting despite optimal treatment; grade ≥3 nonhematologic TEAE (except nausea and vomiting with no adequate treatment, and alopecia); grade ≥3 liver event requiring >7 days recovery to baseline or to grade ≤1 for patients without liver metastases or to grade ≤2 for those with metastases; grade ≥3 lipase and/or amylase rise with pancreatitis confirmation; or any other event that caused a delay of >21 days in planned tepotinib administration due to prolonged recovery to grade ≤1 or baseline status. TEAEs assessed by the investigator to be exclusively related to the patient's underlying disease or medical condition were not considered DLTs. The MTD was defined as the dose level below that at which two of three patients or two of six patients (depending on the size of the cohort) experienced a DLT.

Tumors were assessed at baseline and the end of every second cycle by radiography, computed tomography, or MRI. Tumor response assessments were based on RECIST version 1.0; best overall response (BOR) was assessed between baseline and disease progression. Partial (PR) and complete responses were confirmed 6 weeks after first evaluation.

Pharmacokinetics

Blood samples were taken for pharmacokinetic analysis during cycle 1 (R1 and R3: up to 24 hours postdose days 1 and 14, and predose days 3, 8, and 17; R2: up to 48 hours postdose days 1 and 19 and predose days 3 and 8). Additional blood samples were taken predose on day 1 of each subsequent cycle for all regimens. Standard noncompartmental methods were used to calculate pharmacokinetic parameters using WinNonlin (version 6.3, Certara INC.). Effects of food on the pharmacokinetic characteristics of tepotinib were explored in R1 and R2 patient subsets. The bioavailability of capsule and tablet formulations was compared for tepotinib 500 mg dosing. Differences in area under the plasma concentration curve (AUC) and observed maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) between groups (fed vs. fasted, tablet vs. capsule) were assessed using ANOVA and differences in time to reach the maximum plasma concentration (tmax) by computing the Hodges–Lehmann shift estimate. Dose proportionality was assessed using ANOVA.

Human pharmacokinetic profiles, including 2,914 data points from 419 patients who received tepotinib 30 to 1,400 mg orally once daily, were analyzed with compartmental models using a population approach. The population pharmacokinetic model characterized both the dose–plasma concentration relationship of tepotinib after oral administration in humans, and the associated pharmacokinetic variability between individuals and the intrinsic/extrinsic factors predictive of such variability. Further details on population pharmacokinetic modeling are included in the Supplementary Information.

Biomarkers

Paired tumor biopsies for MET status and pharmacodynamic biomarker assessment were performed when possible and were required from all patients recruited after October 15, 2010, unless archived tumor samples were available. The first biopsy was taken during screening, and the second between days 9 and 14 of cycle 1 (R1), or days 17 and 21 of cycle 1, or, if continuing treatment, on day 1 of cycle 2 (R2 and R3). A Luminex assay was used to assess total MET and phosphorylated MET (phospho-MET) as described in the Supplementary Information. Blood samples for pharmacodynamic assessment were taken on days 1, 3, 8, 14, and 17 (R1 and R3), and days 1, 3, 8, and 19 (R2) of cycle 1.

Tumor MET status was assessed for MET overexpression using IHC and for MET amplification using in situ hybridization (ISH) or next-generation sequencing. For IHC, MET antibodies D1C2 (Cell Signaling Technology) and SP44 (Roche/Ventana) were used. Tumors were classified as overexpressing MET if >50% of cells showed strong MET staining (3+ on a scale of 0–3+; MET IHC3+); otherwise, they were classified as MET IHC≤2. For ISH, MET and CEP7 probes were used, with MET amplification defined as a mean MET:CEP7 ratio ≥2, or clusters of >5 MET copies in >10% of tumor nuclei (>50 nuclei counted). MET amplification was also determined by a next-generation sequencing-based method (Foundation Medicine) on either archived or fresh pretreatment tumor biopsies.

Statistical analysis

Statistical determination of sample size was unnecessary as the protocol followed a classic 3 + 3 design. The primary endpoint was the incidence of DLTs occurring during the first treatment cycle and treatment-related TEAEs. Summary statistics (means, medians, ranges, and appropriate measures of variability) were calculated for each dose level. Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumor activity. All statistical analyses are regarded as exploratory.

Model-informed selection of the RP2D

Preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model simulations were performed to evaluate the correlation between target inhibition and tumor growth inhibition (TGI) as measured by the tumor volume (T) of treated groups in relation to control (C; % T/C). Consequently, a pharmacodynamic criterion for the level of tumor MET phosphorylation inhibition associated with tumor regression was introduced to guide the clinical dose selection. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic bioanalytical assays, together with full details of modeling of preclinical and human data, are presented in Fig. 1B, as well as in the Supplementary Information and Supplementary Fig. S1.

The KP-4 human pancreatic ductal cell carcinoma cell line (RCB1005; Riken Cell Bank) was used to generate xenografts in BALB/c-nu/nu mice because it is considered representative of human tumors with MET pathway activation and sensitivity to MET inhibitors. Xenograft tumors were generated as previously reported (15). All animal studies were conducted at Merck KGaA, in compliance with the institutional ethical guidelines. Tepotinib was produced at Merck KGaA, and prepared for oral administration, as previously described (18). The effect of tepotinib on KP-4 xenograft-bearing mice was determined in a short-term (1–4 day) pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study and longer term (10–16 day) efficacy studies. In the preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study, target inhibition was assessed according to phospho-MET modulation in xenograft tumors; in TGI studies, tumor size was measured. Longitudinal pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic measurements from KP-4 tumor-bearing mice in these studies, and clinical pharmacodynamic assessments based on paired biopsies (pre- and on-treatment) from patients in the first-in-man study (NCT01014936) were then integrated into mathematical models. This translational modeling approach enabled the prediction of an effective dose in humans, targeting a phospho-MET level that was relevant for preclinical efficacy.

To investigate plasma pharmacokinetic and tumor target inhibition, (phospho-MET), KP-4 xenograft-bearing mice (five per group) were randomly assigned to receive a single dose of tepotinib (5, 15, 50, or 200 mg/kg) or vehicle by oral gavage when xenograft tumors reached 250 to 600 mm3. Blood and tumor samples were collected 0.5, 2, 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 hours postdose. Plasma was prepared from blood by centrifugation at 9,000 rpm at 4°C for 5 minutes and stored at −20°C for subsequent tepotinib analysis.

Two experiments assessed the effects of tepotinib on TGI. In the first experiment, KP-4 xenograft-bearing mice (10/group) were randomly assigned to receive tepotinib at 25, 50, or 200 mg/kg/day, or vehicle for 15 days (starting on day 0) by oral gavage when the xenograft tumors reached 80 to 300 mm3. Tumor volume was assessed on days 0, 3, 6, 10, 13, and 16. In the second study, KP-4 xenograft-bearing mice received tepotinib at 5, 15, 25, and 200 mg/kg/day, or vehicle for 10 days. Tumor volume was assessed on days 0, 3, 7, and 10. Tumor volume was calculated as l*w2/2, where l = length of the longest axis of the tumor, and w = perpendicular width.

Patient characteristics and disposition

Overall, 203 patients were screened at four sites: MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois; Roswell Park Medical Center, Buffalo, New York; and Universitätsklinikum Köln, Cologne, Germany. One hundred and forty-nine patients were enrolled between November 2009 (first patient screened) and October 2015 (last patient last visit). The database was locked for final analysis on February 15, 2016.

Table 1 shows baseline patient and tumor characteristics. Patients were initially treated orally with nonmicronized tepotinib in R1 (30–230 mg once daily for 14 days) and R2 (30–115 mg once daily 3 times/week for 3 weeks). Following a protocol amendment, dosing was switched from nonmicronized tepotinib to micronized tepotinib capsules. Subsequently, patients received micronized tepotinib capsules in R1 (30–400 mg once daily for 14 days) and R2 (60–315 mg once daily 3 times/week for 3 weeks). In R3, patients received micronized tepotinib capsules (300–1,400 mg once daily for 3 weeks). After the introduction of R3, R1 ceased enrollment. An additional cohort of 12 patients with MET amplification and a cohort of 12 patients with MET overexpression were included in R3 and received micronized tepotinib 500 mg orally, once daily. The tablet formulation of micronized tepotinib was introduced for testing at the 500 mg dose level in R3; in total, 42 patients received tepotinib 500 mg. Dosing above 1400 mg daily was limited by pill burden.

Table 1.

Baseline patient and tumor characteristics.

Regimen 1Regimen 2Regimen 3Total
(n = 42)(n = 45)(n = 62)(N = 149)
Median age, years (range) 62.8 (21.1–83.1) 61.3 (19.2–81.6) 57.8 (23.2–80.5) 61.0 (19.2–83.1) 
Male/female, n (%) 24 (57.1)/18 (42.9) 22 (48.9)/23 (51.1) 37 (59.7)/25 (40.3) 83 (55.7)/66 (44.3) 
Race, n (%) 
 White 39 (92.9) 37 (82.2) 57 (91.9) 133 (89.3) 
 Black 2 (4.8) 4 (8.9) 2 (3.2) 8 (5.4) 
 Asian 1 (2.4) 2 (4.4) 3 (4.8) 6 (4.0) 
 Other 2 (4.4) 
ECOG PS, n (%) 
 0 8 (19.0) 6 (13.3) 9 (14.5) 23 (15.4) 
 1 33 (78.6) 36 (80.0) 48 (77.4) 117 (78.5) 
 2 1 (2.4) 3 (6.7) 4 (6.5) 8 (5.4) 
 3 1 (1.6) 1 (0.7) 
Location of primary tumor, n 
 Colorectal 13 10 28 
 Lunga 11 17 
 Esophagus 11 15 
 Breast 
 Ovaryb 
 Prostate 
 Liverc 
 Stomach 
 Skin 
 Bone 
 Pancreas 
 Melanoma 
 Kidney 
 Bladder 
 Head and neck 
 Soft tissue 
 Otherd 12 15 11 38 
Tumor type, n 
 Adenocarcinoma 21 15 30 66 
 Melanoma 10 14 
 Sarcoma 11 
 Squamous cell carcinoma 
 Undifferentiated carcinoma 
 Other 13 13 26 52 
Measurable disease at baseline, n (%) 39 (92.9) 42 (93.3) 59 (95.2) 140 (94.0) 
Median number of prior therapies (range) 7 (2–22) 7 (1–25) 6 (1–15) 6 (1–25) 
MET expression by IHC, n (%) 
 MET IHC3+ 2 (4.8) 5 (11.1) 9 (14.5) 16 (10.7) 
 MET IHC ≤ 2 19 (45.2) 22 (48.9) 32 (51.6) 73 (49.0) 
 Not available 21 (50.0) 18 (40.0) 21 (33.9) 60 (40.3) 
MET amplification, n (%) 
 Amplified 9 (14.5) 9 (6.0) 
 Not amplified 17 (40.5) 20 (44.4) 34 (54.8) 71 (47.7) 
 Missing 25 (59.5) 25 (55.6) 19 (30.6) 69 (46.3) 
Regimen 1Regimen 2Regimen 3Total
(n = 42)(n = 45)(n = 62)(N = 149)
Median age, years (range) 62.8 (21.1–83.1) 61.3 (19.2–81.6) 57.8 (23.2–80.5) 61.0 (19.2–83.1) 
Male/female, n (%) 24 (57.1)/18 (42.9) 22 (48.9)/23 (51.1) 37 (59.7)/25 (40.3) 83 (55.7)/66 (44.3) 
Race, n (%) 
 White 39 (92.9) 37 (82.2) 57 (91.9) 133 (89.3) 
 Black 2 (4.8) 4 (8.9) 2 (3.2) 8 (5.4) 
 Asian 1 (2.4) 2 (4.4) 3 (4.8) 6 (4.0) 
 Other 2 (4.4) 
ECOG PS, n (%) 
 0 8 (19.0) 6 (13.3) 9 (14.5) 23 (15.4) 
 1 33 (78.6) 36 (80.0) 48 (77.4) 117 (78.5) 
 2 1 (2.4) 3 (6.7) 4 (6.5) 8 (5.4) 
 3 1 (1.6) 1 (0.7) 
Location of primary tumor, n 
 Colorectal 13 10 28 
 Lunga 11 17 
 Esophagus 11 15 
 Breast 
 Ovaryb 
 Prostate 
 Liverc 
 Stomach 
 Skin 
 Bone 
 Pancreas 
 Melanoma 
 Kidney 
 Bladder 
 Head and neck 
 Soft tissue 
 Otherd 12 15 11 38 
Tumor type, n 
 Adenocarcinoma 21 15 30 66 
 Melanoma 10 14 
 Sarcoma 11 
 Squamous cell carcinoma 
 Undifferentiated carcinoma 
 Other 13 13 26 52 
Measurable disease at baseline, n (%) 39 (92.9) 42 (93.3) 59 (95.2) 140 (94.0) 
Median number of prior therapies (range) 7 (2–22) 7 (1–25) 6 (1–15) 6 (1–25) 
MET expression by IHC, n (%) 
 MET IHC3+ 2 (4.8) 5 (11.1) 9 (14.5) 16 (10.7) 
 MET IHC ≤ 2 19 (45.2) 22 (48.9) 32 (51.6) 73 (49.0) 
 Not available 21 (50.0) 18 (40.0) 21 (33.9) 60 (40.3) 
MET amplification, n (%) 
 Amplified 9 (14.5) 9 (6.0) 
 Not amplified 17 (40.5) 20 (44.4) 34 (54.8) 71 (47.7) 
 Missing 25 (59.5) 25 (55.6) 19 (30.6) 69 (46.3) 

Abbreviation: ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.

a1 small cell carcinoma (R2), 2 non–small cell carcinoma (R3), 2 neuroendocrine carcinoma (R1), 1 oat cell (R1). The remainder were defined as adenocarcinoma or carcinoma.

bIncludes 1 sarcoma extending into the fallopian tube.

c1 adenocarcinoma, (R1), the remainder hepatocellular carcinoma, including 1 fibrolamellar (R3).

dOther locations (R1, R2, R3): adrenocortical (1, 0, 0), alveolar (0, 1, 0), brain (0, 0, 2), chest (0, 1, 0), duodenum (1, 0, 0), eye (1, 5, 0), gastroesophageal junction (0, 0, 2), jejunum (1, 0, 0), mediastinum (0, 0, 1), mouth (0, 1, 0), nasopharyngeal/nose (1, 1, 0), ocular (1, 0, 0), parotid (1, 0, 0), pelvis (0, 0, 1), peritoneum (0, 1, 1), ribs (0, 1, 0), scalp (0, 1, 0), shoulder (1, 0, 0), periseminal vesicle (0, 0, 1), small bowel (1, 0, 1), thyroid (2, 0, 0), toe (0, 1, 0), tongue (0, 0, 1), urethra (0, 0, 1), uveal (1, 1, 0), and undefined (0, 1, 0).

Overall, 149 patients received treatment with a median time on treatment of 6.0 weeks for each regimen: 42 patients on R1 (range, 2.1–153.3 weeks), 45 patients on R2 (range, 1.0–27.6 weeks), and 62 patients on R3 (range, 0.7–94.9 weeks). In the 500 mg cohort, the median time on treatment was 6.0 weeks (range, 0.7–42.4 weeks). Full details of time on treatment for all dose cohorts are shown in Supplementary Table S1.

Safety

Six patients reported DLTs: in R1, one patient (115 mg IF) had asymptomatic grade 4 lipase and grade 3 amylase increase; in R2, two patients (60 and 100 mg OF) had asymptomatic grade 3 lipase increase (one with a prior history of elevated lipase and transaminases), and one (130 mg OF) had grade 3 nausea and vomiting; and in R3, one patient (1,000 mg OF) had grade 3 alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increase and one (1,400 mg OF) grade 3 fatigue. The MTD was not reached at the maximum tested dose of 1,400 mg once daily (R3).

Most (97.3%) patients experienced at least one TEAE. TEAEs led to permanent tepotinib treatment discontinuation for 20 (13.4%) patients. Seventy-six (51.0%) patients experienced treatment-related TEAEs (Table 2), most frequently grade 1/2 fatigue, peripheral edema, decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, and lipase increase. Treatment-related grade ≥3 TEAEs occurred in 13 (8.7%) patients and led to discontinuation in three (2.0%) patients (one in R1 and two in R3). Most treatment-related TEAEs resolved without intervention. There were no treatment-related TEAEs leading to death. Overall, there was a higher frequency of treatment-related TEAEs reported in R3, where higher doses of tepotinib were administered. For the 500 mg cohort (n = 42), incidence of any grade treatment-related TEAEs was similar to the overall study population, with the most common being peripheral edema (11, 26.2%), fatigue (9, 21.4%), and decreased appetite (7, 16.7%; Supplementary Table S2). Of the patients receiving tepotinib 500 mg, six (14.3%) and nine (21.4%) temporarily or permanently discontinued treatment due to TEAEs, respectively. Two (4.8%) patients in the 500 mg cohort had their dose reduced.

Table 2.

Treatment-related TEAEs.

Regimen 1Regimen 2Regimen 3Total
(n = 42)(n = 45)(n = 62)(N = 149)
Patients, n (%)Any gradeGrade ≥3Any gradeGrade ≥3Any gradeGrade ≥3Any gradeGrade ≥3
Treatment-related TEAEsa 14 (33.3) 1 (2.4) 23 (51.1) 3 (6.7) 39 (62.9) 9 (14.5) 76 (51.0) 13 (8.7) 
 Peripheral edema 1 (2.4) 2 (4.4) 16 (25.8) 3 (4.8) 19 (12.8) 3 (2.0) 
 Fatigue 3 (7.1) 5 (11.1) 11 (17.7) 2 (3.2) 19 (12.8) 2 (1.3) 
 Decreased appetite 2 (4.8) 10 (16.1) 12 (8.1) 
 Nausea 1 (2.4) 2 (4.4) 1 (2.2) 6 (9.7) 9 (6.0) 1 (0.7) 
 Vomiting 2 (4.8) 2 (4.4) 1 (2.2) 5 (8.1) 1 (1.6) 9 (6.0) 2 (1.3) 
 Lipase increased 1 (2.4) 1 (2.4) 4 (8.9) 2 (4.4) 1 (1.6) 6 (4.0) 3 (2.0) 
 Rash 2 (4.4) 2 (3.2) 4 (2.7) 
 AST increased 1 (2.4) 3 (4.8) 1 (1.6) 4 (2.7) 1 (0.7) 
 Diarrhea 1 (2.2) 3 (4.8) 4 (2.7) 
 ALT increased 3 (4.8) 2 (3.2) 3 (2.0) 2 (1.3) 
 Anemia 3 (4.8) 3 (2.0) 
 Blood creatinine increased 3 (4.8) 3 (2.0) 
 Constipation 3 (4.8) 3 (2.0) 
 Transaminases increased 3 (4.8) 3 (2.0) 
 Peripheral neuropathy 1 (2.4) 1 (2.2) 1 (1.6) 3 (2.0) 
 Renal failure 2 (4.8) 1 (1.6) 3 (2.0) 
 Edema 1 (1.6) 1 (1.6) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.7) 
 Amylase increased 1 (2.4) 1 (2.4) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.7) 
 Hypoalbuminemia 2 (3.2) 1 (1.6) 2 (1.3) 1 (0.7) 
 Hyponatremia 2 (3.2) 1 (1.6) 2 (1.3) 1 (0.7) 
Regimen 1Regimen 2Regimen 3Total
(n = 42)(n = 45)(n = 62)(N = 149)
Patients, n (%)Any gradeGrade ≥3Any gradeGrade ≥3Any gradeGrade ≥3Any gradeGrade ≥3
Treatment-related TEAEsa 14 (33.3) 1 (2.4) 23 (51.1) 3 (6.7) 39 (62.9) 9 (14.5) 76 (51.0) 13 (8.7) 
 Peripheral edema 1 (2.4) 2 (4.4) 16 (25.8) 3 (4.8) 19 (12.8) 3 (2.0) 
 Fatigue 3 (7.1) 5 (11.1) 11 (17.7) 2 (3.2) 19 (12.8) 2 (1.3) 
 Decreased appetite 2 (4.8) 10 (16.1) 12 (8.1) 
 Nausea 1 (2.4) 2 (4.4) 1 (2.2) 6 (9.7) 9 (6.0) 1 (0.7) 
 Vomiting 2 (4.8) 2 (4.4) 1 (2.2) 5 (8.1) 1 (1.6) 9 (6.0) 2 (1.3) 
 Lipase increased 1 (2.4) 1 (2.4) 4 (8.9) 2 (4.4) 1 (1.6) 6 (4.0) 3 (2.0) 
 Rash 2 (4.4) 2 (3.2) 4 (2.7) 
 AST increased 1 (2.4) 3 (4.8) 1 (1.6) 4 (2.7) 1 (0.7) 
 Diarrhea 1 (2.2) 3 (4.8) 4 (2.7) 
 ALT increased 3 (4.8) 2 (3.2) 3 (2.0) 2 (1.3) 
 Anemia 3 (4.8) 3 (2.0) 
 Blood creatinine increased 3 (4.8) 3 (2.0) 
 Constipation 3 (4.8) 3 (2.0) 
 Transaminases increased 3 (4.8) 3 (2.0) 
 Peripheral neuropathy 1 (2.4) 1 (2.2) 1 (1.6) 3 (2.0) 
 Renal failure 2 (4.8) 1 (1.6) 3 (2.0) 
 Edema 1 (1.6) 1 (1.6) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.7) 
 Amylase increased 1 (2.4) 1 (2.4) 1 (0.7) 1 (0.7) 
 Hypoalbuminemia 2 (3.2) 1 (1.6) 2 (1.3) 1 (0.7) 
 Hyponatremia 2 (3.2) 1 (1.6) 2 (1.3) 1 (0.7) 

Abbreviation: AST, aspartate transaminase.

aFor any-grade treatment-related TEAEs, events occurring in >2 patients with any regimen are reported; for treatment-related TEAEs grade 3 or higher, all events are shown.

Overall, 53 (35.6%) patients reported serious adverse events (SAE). In one patient, these were considered related to study treatment (grade 3 nausea and grade 3 vomiting, R2). The most frequent SAEs in R3 were grade 2 or 3 gastrointestinal disorders. One patient (R3, tepotinib 500 mg once daily) died due to an SAE of hepatic failure recorded as disease progression unrelated to the study drug.

Pharmacokinetics

In fasting patients, the initial capsule formulation produced highly variable AUC and Cmax, so the formulation was optimized and administered with food. The following pharmacokinetic results were obtained in fed patients using the optimized formulation, including the 500 mg tablet formulation (see Supplementary Tables S3–S6). Tepotinib was absorbed slowly after the first dose, with a median tmax of 8 to 10 hours. Increases in Cmax and AUC0–24 h with increasing dose were observed after single and multiple dosing for both once daily and 3 times/week tepotinib administration. A dose proportional increase in Cmax and AUC0–24 h occurred for once-daily doses ≤300 mg, with less than dose proportional increases at higher doses. Apparent clearance at steady state (Clss/f) was stable for tepotinib doses ≤315 mg (Clss/f 11.35–24.50 L/h) but increased at doses ≥700 mg (Clss/f 35.24–40.92 L/h). Clss/f for the tablet formulation at 500 mg was estimated to be 26.43 L/h. Multiple dosing resulted in accumulation of tepotinib in all regimens.

On the basis of the median AUC0–24 h accumulation ratio of 3.3 after multiple once-daily dosing (500 mg tablet formulation), the average effective t1/2 was estimated to be approximately 46 hours. Correspondingly small peak-to-trough fluctuations were observed at steady state, for example, patients receiving tepotinib 500 mg in tablet form exhibited fluctuations of 32.1% around the geometric mean Cav of 1,097.9 ng/mL (Supplementary Table S4; Supplementary Fig. S2).

Steady-state exposure to tepotinib was increased for patients receiving 500 mg tepotinib as tablets versus capsules, with geometric mean AUC0–24 h and Cmax higher by 37% and 38%, respectively. tmax was unaffected by formulation as assessed after the first dose.

Clinical antitumor activity of tepotinib

The BOR in R3 was PR in two patients (Table 3): a 77-year-old male with MET IHC3+ (MET not amplified) esophageal cancer who received tepotinib 500 mg once daily (tablet formulation); and a 56-year-old female with MET IHC3+ (MET not amplified) lung cancer who received tepotinib 1,400 mg once daily and completed 32 cycles of tepotinib treatment with a progression-free survival (PFS) time of 21.8 months. Two further patients had unconfirmed PRs; one (R2; MET status unknown) had nasopharyngeal carcinoma and one (R3; MET amplified and MET IHC3+) had colorectal cancer. Thirty-four patients had a BOR of SD, including 12 in R3. The BOR according to MET status is shown in Table 4. The change in the sum of longest diameters of target lesions from baseline is shown in Supplementary Fig. S3.

Table 3.

Best overall response, objective response rate, and clinical benefit rate by regimen.

Regimen 1Regimen 2Regimen 3Total
Response(n = 42)(n = 45)(n = 62)(N = 149)
Partial response, n (%) 2 (3.2) 2 (1.3)a 
Stable disease, n (%) 12 (28.6) 10 (22.2) 12 (19.4) 34 (22.8) 
Progressive disease, n (%) 25 (59.5) 27 (60.0) 38 (61.3) 90 (60.4) 
Not evaluable, n (%) 5 (11.9) 8 (17.8) 10 (16.1) 23 (15.4) 
Objective response rate, n (%; 90% CI) 0 (0; 0–6.9) 0 (0; 0–6.4) 2 (3.2; 0.6–9.8) 2 (1.3; 0.2–4.2) 
Clinical benefit rate, n (%; 90% CI) 12 (28.6; 17.4–42.1) 10 (22.2; 12.6–34.8) 14 (22.6; 14.2–33.0) 36 (24.2; 18.5–30.6) 
Regimen 1Regimen 2Regimen 3Total
Response(n = 42)(n = 45)(n = 62)(N = 149)
Partial response, n (%) 2 (3.2) 2 (1.3)a 
Stable disease, n (%) 12 (28.6) 10 (22.2) 12 (19.4) 34 (22.8) 
Progressive disease, n (%) 25 (59.5) 27 (60.0) 38 (61.3) 90 (60.4) 
Not evaluable, n (%) 5 (11.9) 8 (17.8) 10 (16.1) 23 (15.4) 
Objective response rate, n (%; 90% CI) 0 (0; 0–6.9) 0 (0; 0–6.4) 2 (3.2; 0.6–9.8) 2 (1.3; 0.2–4.2) 
Clinical benefit rate, n (%; 90% CI) 12 (28.6; 17.4–42.1) 10 (22.2; 12.6–34.8) 14 (22.6; 14.2–33.0) 36 (24.2; 18.5–30.6) 

aTwo further patients with a best overall response of stable disease (one each in regimen 2 and regimen 3) had an unconfirmed partial response.

Table 4.

Best overall response, objective response rate, and clinical benefit rate by tumor MET status.

MET IHC ≤ 2MET IHC3+Not amplifiedAmplified
Response(n = 73)(n = 16)(n = 71)(n = 9)
Partial response, n (%) 2 (12.5) 2 (2.8) 
Stable disease, n (%) 17 (23.3) 4 (25.0) 17 (23.9) 2 (22.2) 
Progressive disease, n (%) 47 (64.4) 7 (43.8) 42 (59.2) 5 (55.6) 
Not evaluable, n (%) 9 (12.3) 3 (18.8) 10 (14.1) 2 (22.2) 
Objective response rate, n (%; 90% CI) 0 (0; 0–4.0) 2 (12.5; 2.3–34.4) 2 (2.8; 0.5–8.6) 0 (0; 0–28.3) 
Clinical benefit rate, n (%; 90% CI) 17 (23.3; 15.4–32.9) 6 (37.5; 17.8–60.9) 19 (26.8; 18.3–36.7) 2 (22.2; 4.1–55.0) 
MET IHC ≤ 2MET IHC3+Not amplifiedAmplified
Response(n = 73)(n = 16)(n = 71)(n = 9)
Partial response, n (%) 2 (12.5) 2 (2.8) 
Stable disease, n (%) 17 (23.3) 4 (25.0) 17 (23.9) 2 (22.2) 
Progressive disease, n (%) 47 (64.4) 7 (43.8) 42 (59.2) 5 (55.6) 
Not evaluable, n (%) 9 (12.3) 3 (18.8) 10 (14.1) 2 (22.2) 
Objective response rate, n (%; 90% CI) 0 (0; 0–4.0) 2 (12.5; 2.3–34.4) 2 (2.8; 0.5–8.6) 0 (0; 0–28.3) 
Clinical benefit rate, n (%; 90% CI) 17 (23.3; 15.4–32.9) 6 (37.5; 17.8–60.9) 19 (26.8; 18.3–36.7) 2 (22.2; 4.1–55.0) 

Targeted pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic threshold

In the preclinical efficacy studies, tumor control was observed in treatment groups receiving a daily dose of tepotinib ≥25 mg/kg (Fig. 2A). The Simeoni tumor growth model was found to adequately fit the treatment effects of tepotinib. Concentrations of tepotinib required to achieve 90% (EC90) to 95% (EC95) maximum tumor inhibition were estimated to be within the range 390 to 823 ng/mL in humans after correcting for protein binding differences (2.9% in mice and 1.6% in humans).

Figure 2.

Tumor growth inhibition and dose-dependent phospho-MET inhibition. A, Tumor growth inhibition in KP-4 cell-line xenograft tumors. Observed versus predicted tumor volumes after fitting the pharmacokinetic/efficacy model to tumor volume data (means from two independent experiments) from the KP-4 xenograft efficacy studies. B, Correlation of efficacy (% T/C) to pharmacodynamic modulation phospho-MET inhibition (Y1234–1235) in the KP-4 xenograft tumor model on the last day of the experiment, matching by dose regimen. Near-complete inhibition (≥95%) of phospho-MET is required for tumor stasis or regression. Using the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model, phospho-MET modulation was simulated under daily treatment conditions and at the doses tested in the efficacy experiments (5–200 mg/kg). The average phospho-MET over time was then calculated and plotted against %TGI. The black line represents the fit to the data and shows that tumor regression (% T/C > 0) is achieved when mean phospho-MET is >95% over the treatment period. %T/C represents the tumor volume of treated groups in relation to control and is calculated according to: %ΔT/ΔC = (TVf − TVi/TVfCtrl – TViCtrl) × 100%, where TV = tumor volume, f = final, i = initial, Ctrl = control. C, Simulation of dose-dependent phospho-MET inhibition (relative to baseline) in humans. Left to right, tepotinib 300, 500, and 1,000 mg once daily every other week, respectively. The solid black curve represents the time profile of population median prediction of percentage phospho-MET inhibition relative to baseline, and the shaded area represents a simulation-based 10% to 90% prediction interval for phospho-MET inhibition relative to baseline. The dotted lines indicate the pharmacodynamic threshold of 95% phospho-MET inhibition.

Figure 2.

Tumor growth inhibition and dose-dependent phospho-MET inhibition. A, Tumor growth inhibition in KP-4 cell-line xenograft tumors. Observed versus predicted tumor volumes after fitting the pharmacokinetic/efficacy model to tumor volume data (means from two independent experiments) from the KP-4 xenograft efficacy studies. B, Correlation of efficacy (% T/C) to pharmacodynamic modulation phospho-MET inhibition (Y1234–1235) in the KP-4 xenograft tumor model on the last day of the experiment, matching by dose regimen. Near-complete inhibition (≥95%) of phospho-MET is required for tumor stasis or regression. Using the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model, phospho-MET modulation was simulated under daily treatment conditions and at the doses tested in the efficacy experiments (5–200 mg/kg). The average phospho-MET over time was then calculated and plotted against %TGI. The black line represents the fit to the data and shows that tumor regression (% T/C > 0) is achieved when mean phospho-MET is >95% over the treatment period. %T/C represents the tumor volume of treated groups in relation to control and is calculated according to: %ΔT/ΔC = (TVf − TVi/TVfCtrl – TViCtrl) × 100%, where TV = tumor volume, f = final, i = initial, Ctrl = control. C, Simulation of dose-dependent phospho-MET inhibition (relative to baseline) in humans. Left to right, tepotinib 300, 500, and 1,000 mg once daily every other week, respectively. The solid black curve represents the time profile of population median prediction of percentage phospho-MET inhibition relative to baseline, and the shaded area represents a simulation-based 10% to 90% prediction interval for phospho-MET inhibition relative to baseline. The dotted lines indicate the pharmacodynamic threshold of 95% phospho-MET inhibition.

Close modal

The correlation plot of efficacy reflected by TGI versus target modulation model-predicted average phospho-MET inhibition suggested that regression in KP-4 xenograft tumors corresponded to approximately 95% phospho-MET inhibition (Fig. 2B). Therefore, a pharmacodynamic criterion of sustained nearly complete inhibition of phospho-MET (greater than 95%) was introduced as the targeted pharmacodynamic threshold in phase II development.

Clinical dose selection

Population pharmacodynamic simulation was performed using the full inhibitory turnover Imax pharmacodynamic model driven by the concentrations simulated from the population pharmacokinetic model, including estimated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability. Targeting the pharmacodynamic criterion of sustained close-to-complete (≥95%) phospho-MET inhibition in tumors, simulations suggested that a regimen of tepotinib 500 mg once daily could achieve the pharmacodynamic threshold in 90% of the population (Fig. 2C). The clinical pharmacokinetic data on day 14 show that at a tepotinib dose of 500 mg once daily in humans, the individual trough tepotinib concentrations were within or above the target range and the mean steady-state concentration is above the range (390–823 ng/mL) as determined from KP-4 efficacy experiments (Supplementary Fig. S2).

Both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evidence supported the selection of tepotinib 500 mg once daily as the RP2D, which was well tolerated in the first-in-man trial and expected to deliver clinical efficacy in the target population. Further results from the modeling of preclinical and human data are presented in Supplementary Fig. S4 and Supplementary Table S7.

This first-in-man study was conducted to establish the MTD of tepotinib in patients with advanced solid tumors, using a classic 3 + 3 dose escalation design. We analyzed data from 149 patients treated according to three dose escalation regimens (R1–3). Tepotinib treatment was well-tolerated up to 1,400 mg but no MTD could be defined. We have used a translational modeling approach to establish the tepotinib RP2D for patients with solid tumors. Phospho-MET inhibition in human tumors was fitted to a turnover model structurally developed on the basis of KP-4 xenograft tumor data. On the basis of tumor shrinkage and MET inhibition results from mice with KP-4 xenografts, an active concentration range of tepotinib was predicted and scaled up to humans. Efficacy and pharmacodynamic profiling in KP-4 xenograft tumors suggested that near-complete inhibition of MET kinase activity (≥95% reduction in phospho-MET) is required to achieve tumor regression. Targeting this pharmacodynamic threshold, a biologically active dose of 500 mg once daily was proposed as the RP2D for tepotinib in patients with solid tumors. In addition, continuous daily dosing with 500 mg of tepotinib was predicted to achieve the target exposure range (390–823 ng/mL). This dose is predicted to achieve continuous ≥95% MET inhibition in 90% of the population. Steady-state concentration time profiles at the 500 mg dose level, both for the capsule and the tablet formulation, showed exposure beyond the threshold as shown in Supplementary Fig. S2, and dosing of 42 patients confirmed the safety and tolerability of tepotinib at the RP2D of 500 mg once daily. The translational approach applied here highlights the utility of integrating preclinical and emerging first-in-man clinical data to support RP2D selection. Furthermore, the characterization of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic relationships in patients will allow doses and dose schedules to be modified for specific patient populations as appropriate.

A limitation of translational modeling is that some equivalence between the preclinical and clinical settings must be assumed, particularly with respect to conservation of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic/efficacy relationships, and the similarity of preclinical xenograft tumor models to human malignancies. In addition, cell-line xenograft tumors do not reflect the heterogeneity of tumors in patients, which may develop MET-independent clones. For a conservative estimate of the tepotinib dose efficacy relationship, the pancreatic cancer model KP-4 was chosen. HGF/MET autocrine KP-4 tumors are sensitive to tepotinib treatment but require substantially high doses to provoke partial tumor regression (15). Moreover, KP-4 xenografts have allowed reasonable dose predictions to be made for MET inhibitors in the past, increasing confidence in their relevance as a model of MET-positive tumors (19).

Among the several types of MET inhibitors in development, potent, selective MET inhibitors are most likely to deliver optimal inhibition of MET with an optimal benefit–risk ratio. The potency of tepotinib reduces its effective dose, and its selectivity minimizes the risk of toxicity due to off-target kinase inhibition, increasing its therapeutic margin. The main TEAEs associated with tepotinib were grade 1 or 2 peripheral edema, fatigue, decreased appetite, and nausea and vomiting. Some patients experienced increases in serum lipase, amylase, ALT, and aspartate aminotransferase, which are asymptomatic, and generally resolve without treatment modification. Clinical studies of selective MET inhibitors capmatinib and savolitinib also reported peripheral edema, decreased appetite, and nausea among the most common treatment-related TEAEs (20, 21). Although the incidence of grade ≥3 treatment-related TEAEs was highest in the cohort that received continuous daily tepotinib (R3), tepotinib was well tolerated at the RP2D of 500 mg once daily with no DLTs and only two treatment-related TEAEs leading to discontinuation. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of tepotinib allow oral once-daily dosing, which assists compliance, and its long half-life ensures a small peak–trough variation over 24 hours, reducing the risk of toxicity at peak and suboptimal inhibition at trough. These pharmacokinetic characteristics also support steady target inhibition, and in conjunction with available safety and tolerability results, constitute a promising drug profile for tepotinib.

Although preclinical studies suggested that MET alterations, either overexpression or more especially genetic alterations such as MET amplification, may trigger a tumor to become more sensitive to MET inhibitors (1), the majority of patients in this study were not selected according to MET status. This nonselected recruitment to the trial was primarily designed to investigate safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics; nevertheless, antitumor activity was observed. The BOR was a PR in two patients with MET IHC3+ tumors and SD in 12 patients in R3. Although data are limited with only 16 patients with MET IHC3+ and nine patients with MET amplified tumors, the antitumor activity of tepotinib appeared greatest in patients with MET IHC3+ tumors.

These data suggest that tepotinib warrants further investigation in cancer patients with MET dysregulation. Phase Ib/II trials of tepotinib 500 mg once daily in patients with MET-overexpressing hepatocellular carcinoma (NCT01988493 and NCT02115373) and non–small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) with MET alterations (NCT01982955 and NCT02864992) have confirmed both the tolerability of tepotinib and demonstrated clinical activity (22–25). A pooled safety analysis of 260 patients who received tepotinib 500 mg in five phase Ib/II studies also showed the 500 mg dose to be generally well tolerated (26). In patients with MET-amplified EGFR-mutant NSCLC with resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, treatment with tepotinib plus gefitinib greatly improved outcomes versus the chemotherapy control arm [PFS 16.6 vs. 4.2 months, HR 0.13 (90% confidence interval (CI), 0.04–0.43); overall survival 37.3 versus 13.1 months, HR 0.09 (90% CI, 0.01–0.54; ref. 23)]. Interim data from an ongoing study of patients with NSCLC harboring MET exon 14-skipping alterations reported an overall response rate of 45% to 55% (27).

In summary, the RP2D of 500 mg tepotinib orally once daily is well tolerated by patients with advanced solid tumors. This first-in-man trial also demonstrated that tepotinib can be administered safely up to 1,400 mg/day. Patients with high-level MET-expressing tumors appear to benefit most from treatment, and additional clinical studies in patients with MET dysregulated tumors are ongoing.

G.S. Falchook is a paid consultant for Fujifilm and EMD Serono; reports receiving commercial research grants through his institution from 3-V Biosciences, AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, Aileron, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Amgen, ARMO, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bioatla, Celldex, Celgene, Ciclomed, Curegenix, Curis, Cyteir, DelMar, eFFECTOR, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Fujifilm, Genmab, GlaxoSmithKline, Hutchison MediPharma, Ignyta, Incyte, Jacobio, Jounce, Kolltan, Loxo, MedImmune, Millenium, Merck, miRNA, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, OncoMed, Oncothyreon, Precision Oncology, Regeneron, Rgenix, Ribon Strategia, Syndax, Taiho, Takeda, Tesaro, Tocagen, Turning Point Therapeutics, U.T. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Vegenics, and Xencor; reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria through his institution from Total Health Conferencing; and reports receiving other remuneration from Wolters Kluwer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Fujifilm, Milennium, and Sarah Cannon Research Institute. R. Kurzrock is a paid consultant for Gaido, LOXO, X-Biotech, Acuate Therapeutics, Roche, NeoMed, Soluventis, and Pfizer; reports receiving commercial research grants through her institution from Incyte, Genentech, Merck Serono, Pfizer, Sequenom, Foundation Medicine, Guardant Health, Grifols, Konica Minolta, DeBiopharm, Boehringer Ingelheim, and OmniSeq; reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Roche; and reports receiving other remuneration from IDbyDNA, CureMatch, and Soluventis. H.H. Amin reports receiving commercial research grants from EMD Serono. W. Xiong is an employee of Merck KGaA. S.A. Piha-Paul reports receiving commercial research grants through her institution from NIH/NCI, and reports receiving other commercial research support through her institution from AbbVie, Aminex Therapeutics, BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cerulean Pharma, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Curis, Five Prime Therapeutics, Genmab A/S, GlaxoSmithKline, Helix BioPharma, Incyte, Jacobio Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune, Medivation, Merck Sharp and Dohme, NewLink Genetics/Blue Link Pharmaceuticals, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Merck & Co, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Principia Biopharma, Puma Biotechnology, Rapt Therapeutics, Taiho Oncology, Tesaro, TransThera, and Xuan Zhu Biopharma. D.V. Catenacci is a paid consultant for Astellas, Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Taiho, and Gritstone, and reports receiving speakers bureau honoraria from Lilly, Roche, Merck, Guardant Health, Foundation Medicine, and Tempus. M. Klevesath is an employee of Merck KGaA. R. Bruns is an employee of Merck KGaA. U. Stammberger is an employee of Merck KGaA. A. Johne is an employee of Merck KGaA. M. Friese-Hamim is an employee of Merck KGaA. P. Girard is an employee of Merck Serono. S. El Bawab is an employee of Merck KGaA. D.S. Hong is a paid consultant for Alpha Insights, Avuta, Amgen, Axiom, Adaptimmune, Baxter, Bayer, Genentech, GLG, Group H, Guidepoint, Infinity, Janssen, Merrimack, Medscape, Numab, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Trieza Therapeutics, and WebMD; reports receiving commercial research grants from AbbVie, Adaptimmune, Adii-Norte, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Fate Therapeutics, Genentech, Genmab, Ignyta, Infinity, Kite, Kyowa, Lilly, LOXO, Merck, Medimmune, Mirati, miRNA, Molecular Templates, Mologen, NIC-CTEP, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, and Turning Point Therapeutics; and holds ownership interest (including patents) in Molecular Match, Oncoresponse, and Presagia. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed by the other authors.

Conception and design: H.M. Amin, W. Xiong, M. Klevesath, U. Stammberger, A. Johne, F. Bladt

Development of methodology: H.M. Amin, W. Xiong, M. Klevesath, U. Stammberger, A. Johne, F. Bladt

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): G.S. Falchook, H.M. Amin, S. Fu, S.A. Piha-Paul, F. Janku, D.V. Catenacci, U. Stammberger, A. Johne, M. Friese-Hamim, D.S. Hong

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): G.S. Falchook, R. Kurzrock, H.M. Amin, W. Xiong, S. Fu, S.A. Piha-Paul, D.V. Catenacci, M. Klevesath, R. Bruns, U. Stammberger, A. Johne, F. Bladt, M. Friese-Hamim, P. Girard, S. El Bawab, D.S. Hong

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: G.S. Falchook, R. Kurzrock, H.M. Amin, W. Xiong, S. Fu, S.A. Piha-Paul, F. Janku, G. Eskandari, D.V. Catenacci, M. Klevesath, R. Bruns, U. Stammberger, A. Johne, M. Friese-Hamim, P. Girard, S. El Bawab, D.S. Hong

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): H.M. Amin, G. Eskandari, A. Johne

Study supervision: G.S. Falchook, H.M. Amin, M. Klevesath, A. Johne, D.S. Hong

The trial was sponsored by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The authors thank the patients and their families, as well as investigators and co-investigators at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, and University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois; Jürgen Wolf and co-investigators at Universitätsklinikum Köln, Cologne, Germany; and Wen Wee Ma and co-investigators at Roswell Park Medical Center, Buffalo, New York, and the study teams at Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The authors specifically acknowledge the contributions of the following, formerly of Merck KGaA, to the conduct of this trial: Lucia Trandafir, currently employed by Novartis, Paris, France, and HongXia Zheng, currently employed by Bayer HealthCare, Whippany, New Jersey. The authors thank Frank Jaerhling and Andrea Paoletti, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, for their contribution to the work described herein. Medical writing assistance was provided by Bioscript Science, Macclesfield, UK, and funded by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Garajova
I
,
Giovannetti
E
,
Biasco
G
,
Peters
GJ
. 
c-Met as a target for personalized therapy
.
Transl Oncogenomics
2015
;
7
(
Suppl 1
):
13
31
.
2.
Gao
JJ
,
Inagaki
Y
,
Xue
X
,
Qu
XJ
,
Tang
W
. 
c-Met: a potential therapeutic target for hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Drug Discov Ther
2011
;
5
:
2
11
.
3.
Ma
PC
,
Tretiakova
MS
,
MacKinnon
AC
,
Ramnath
N
,
Johnson
C
,
Dietrich
S
, et al
Expression and mutational analysis of MET in human solid cancers
.
Genes Chromosomes Cancer
2008
;
47
:
1025
37
.
4.
Toschi
L
,
Cappuzzo
F
. 
Clinical implications of MET gene copy number in lung cancer
.
Future Oncol
2010
;
6
:
239
47
.
5.
Wu
CW
,
Li
AF
,
Chi
CW
,
Chung
WW
,
Liu
TY
,
Lui
WY
, et al
Hepatocyte growth factor and Met/HGF receptors in patients with gastric adenocarcinoma
.
Oncol Rep
1998
;
5
:
817
22
.
6.
Lee
SJ
,
Lee
J
,
Sohn
I
,
Mao
M
,
Kai
W
,
Park
CK
, et al
A survey of c-MET expression and amplification in 287 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Anticancer Res
2013
;
33
:
5179
86
.
7.
Frampton
GM
,
Ali
SM
,
Rosenzweig
M
,
Chmielecki
J
,
Lu
X
,
Bauer
TM
, et al
Activation of MET via diverse exon 14 splicing alterations occurs in multiple tumor types and confers clinical sensitivity to MET inhibitors
.
Cancer Discov
2015
;
5
:
850
9
.
8.
Corso
S
,
Comoglio
PM
,
Giordano
S
. 
Cancer therapy: can the challenge be MET?
Trends Mol Med
2005
;
11
:
284
92
.
9.
Gao
H
,
Guan
M
,
Sun
Z
,
Bai
C
. 
High c-Met expression is a negative prognostic marker for colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis
.
Tumour Biol
2015
;
36
:
515
20
.
10.
Catenacci
DV
,
Ang
A
,
Liao
WL
,
Shen
J
,
O'Day
E
,
Loberg
RD
, et al
MET tyrosine kinase receptor expression and amplification as prognostic biomarkers of survival in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma
.
Cancer
2017
;
123
:
1061
70
.
11.
Wu
YL
,
Soo
RA
,
Locatelli
G
,
Stammberger
U
,
Scagliotti
G
,
Park
K
. 
Does c-Met remain a rational target for therapy in patients with EGFR TKI-resistant non-small cell lung cancer?
Cancer Treat Rev
2017
;
61
:
70
81
.
12.
Bouattour
M
,
Raymond
E
,
Qin
S
,
Cheng
AL
,
Stammberger
U
,
Locatelli
G
, et al
Recent developments of c-Met as a therapeutic target in hepatocellular carcinoma
.
Hepatology
2018
;
67
:
1132
49
.
13.
Comoglio
PM
,
Giordano
S
,
Trusolino
L
. 
Drug development of MET inhibitors: targeting oncogene addiction and expedience
.
Nat Rev Drug Discov
2008
;
7
:
504
16
.
14.
Bladt
F
,
Friese-Hamim
M
,
Ihling
C
,
Wilm
C
,
Blaukat
A
. 
The c-Met inhibitor MSC2156119J effectively inhibits tumor growth in liver cancer models
.
Cancers
2014
;
6
:
1736
52
.
15.
Bladt
F
,
Faden
B
,
Friese-Hamim
M
,
Knuehl
C
,
Wilm
C
,
Fittschen
C
, et al
EMD 1214063 and EMD 1204831 constitute a new class of potent and highly selective c-Met inhibitors
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
2941
51
.
16.
Friese-Hamim
M
,
Bladt
F
,
Locatelli
G
,
Stammberger
U
,
Blaukat
A
. 
The selective c-Met inhibitor tepotinib can overcome epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor resistance mediated by aberrant c-Met activation in NSCLC models
.
Am J Cancer Res
2017
;
7
:
962
72
.
17.
Mikami
K
,
Medova
M
,
Nisa
L
,
Francica
P
,
Gluck
AA
,
Tschan
MP
, et al
Impact of p53 status on radiosensitization of tumor cells by MET inhibition-associated checkpoint abrogation
.
Mol Cancer Res
2015
;
13
:
1544
53
.
18.
Schadt
O
,
Blaukat
A
.
Tepotinib. In
:
Chackalamannil
S
,
Rotella
D
,
Ward
SE
,
editors
.
Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry III
.
3 ed
.
Oxford, UK
:
Elsevier
; 
2017
.
p
.
178
203
.
19.
Xiang
H
,
Bender
BC
,
Reyes
AE
 II
,
Merchant
M
,
Jumbe
NL
,
Romero
M
, et al
Onartuzumab (MetMAb): using nonclinical pharmacokinetic and concentration-effect data to support clinical development
.
Clin Cancer Res
2013
;
19
:
5068
78
.
20.
Wu
YL
,
Zhang
L
,
Kim
DW
,
Liu
X
,
Lee
DH
,
Yang
JC
, et al
Phase Ib/II study of capmatinib (INC280) plus gefitinib after failure of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor therapy in patients with EGFR-mutated, MET factor-dysregulated non-small-cell lung cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
2018
;
36
:
3101
9
.
21.
Choueiri
TK
,
Plimack
E
,
Arkenau
HT
,
Jonasch
E
,
Heng
DYC
,
Powles
T
, et al
Biomarker-based phase II trial of savolitinib in patients with advanced papillary renal cell cancer
.
J Clin Oncol
2017
;
35
:
2993
3001
.
22.
Felip
E
,
Horn
L
,
Patel
JD
,
Sakai
H
,
Scheele
J
,
Bruns
R
, et al
Tepotinib in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring MET exon 14-skipping mutations: phase II trial
.
J Clin Oncol
2018
;
36
(
Suppl 15
):
9016
.
23.
Wu
Y-L
,
Cheng
Y
,
Zhou
J
,
Lu
S
,
Zhang
Y
,
Zhao
J
, et al
Long-term outcomes to tepotinib plus gefitinib in patients with EGFR-mutant NSCLC and MET dysregulation: 18 month follow-up
.
J Thorac Oncol
2019
;
14
:
S284
(
abstr MA09.09
).
24.
Ryoo
BY
,
Ren
Z
,
Kim
TY
,
Pan
H
,
Rau
KM
,
Choi
HJ
, et al
621PD phase II trial of tepotinib vs. sorafenib in Asian patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)
.
Ann Oncol
2018
;
29
(
Suppl 8
):
mdy282.005
.
25.
Decaens
T
,
Barone
C
,
Assenat
E
,
Wermke
M
,
Fasolo
A
,
Merle
P
, et al
698P phase II efficacy and safety data for the MET inhibitor tepotinib in patients (pts) with sorafenib-treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)
.
Ann Oncol
2018
;
29
(
Suppl 8
):
mdy282.081
.
26.
Decaens
T
,
Ryoo
B-Y
,
Falchook
GS
,
Veillon
R
,
Doi
T
,
Yamazaki
K
, et al
Safety profile of tepotinib in patients with advanced solid tumors: pooled analysis of phase I and II data
.
Ann Oncol
2019
;
30
(
Suppl 5
):
mdz244.041
.
27.
Paik
PK
,
Veillon
R
,
Cortot
AB
,
Felip
E
,
Sakai
H
,
Mazieres
J
, et al
Phase II study of tepotinib in NSCLC patients with MET ex14 mutations
.
J Clin Oncol
2019
;
37
:
15s
(
suppl; abstr 9005
).