WCLC 2021 | VISION trial: subset efficacy analyses of tepotinib for NSCLC

I am presenting along with my co-authors, an update on the VISION study cohort A and there are a few different cohorts that are built into the VISION study, cohorts A, B, and C. Cohorts A and C are quite similar. They’re both treating patients with this unique oncogenic alteration called MET exon 14 skipping, in lung cancer patients specifically. And the cohort B, which we’ve not yet presented, is focusing on patients who are MET-amplified, so that’s something just to sort of file away for the future.

We have presented cohort A before, on multiple occasions. I think the most high-profile was back in 2019, actually, when I first met VJOncology, after we had presented an oral abstract with an update in a New England Journal paper from last year, and then a further update now from a data lock in July, 2020. So those are the data that I’m presenting for World Lung and it’s an update on the overall efficacy. And I can tell you from that standpoint, it’s very similar to what we’ve presented before.

So with the benefit of time, we’ve seen consistency in the data, which I think is the big message. The overall response rate, depending on the cohort you look at, hovers around 45 to 50%. The median PFS consistently is around 8.9 to 9 months, and a median duration of response of about 11 months.

In this analysis, we took a little bit more of a detailed look in the different lines of setting, now that the data have matured. For patients who are treatment naïve and patients who have been previously treated, to take a look to see whether or not there’s been any kind of difference in efficacy based on that, as some others have reported with other MET-specific drugs. And in fact, we have seen virtually no difference.

So there’s been a great degree of consistency, whether or not tepotinib is given in the first line setting or the second line setting and beyond. And then the other part of the abstract that we presented was drilling down further on patients who have been previously treated in terms of the kinds of treatments they’ve received, whether it be immunotherapy-based treatments or chemotherapy-based treatments, or both, again, to see whether or not there’s been a difference in efficacy broken down by that. And the sample size is smaller, but again, a surprising degree of consistency, which I think is always nice to see. And so really, I think that’s the take home message for this updated presentation, that with the benefit of time, particularly for the smaller subset analyses that we have been trying to take a look at, we’ve seen continued persistent consistency in the efficacy across these different populations.