PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic EGFR-mutant NSCLC, acquired resistance to first-/second-generation EGFR inhibitors, and MET gene copy number (GCN) ≥5, MET:CEP7 ≥2, or MET IHC 2+/3+ were randomized to tepotinib 500 mg (450 mg active moiety) plus gefitinib 250 mg once daily, or chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). MET-amplified subgroup analysis was preplanned.
RESULTS: Overall (N = 55), median PFS was 4.9 months versus 4.4 months [stratified HR, 0.67; 90% CI, 0.35-1.28] with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus chemotherapy. In 19 patients with MET amplification (median age 60.4 years; 68.4% never-smokers; median GCN 8.8; median MET/CEP7 2.8; 89.5% with MET IHC 3+), tepotinib plus gefitinib improved PFS (HR, 0.13; 90% CI, 0.04-0.43) and overall survival (OS; HR, 0.10; 90% CI, 0.02-0.36) versus chemotherapy. Objective response rate was 66.7% with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus 42.9% with chemotherapy; median duration of response was 19.9 months versus 2.8 months. Median duration of tepotinib plus gefitinib was 11.3 months (range, 1.1-56.5), with treatment >1 year in six (50.0%) and >4 years in three patients (25.0%). Seven patients (58.3%) had treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events with tepotinib plus gefitinib and five (71.4%) had chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Final analysis of INSIGHT suggests improved PFS and OS with tepotinib plus gefitinib versus chemotherapy in a subgroup of patients with MET-amplified EGFR-mutant NSCLC, after progression on EGFR inhibitors.
METHODS: This multicenter study addressed the course of disease for each organ system. Metabolic, neuroradiological, and genetic findings are reported.
RESULTS: Sixty-seven individuals (39 previously unreported) from 59 families were included (age range = 5 days-33.4 years, median age = 9 years). A total of 41 different SERAC1 variants were identified, including 20 that have not been reported before. With the exception of 2 families with a milder phenotype, all affected individuals showed a strikingly homogeneous phenotype and time course. Severe, reversible neonatal liver dysfunction and hypoglycemia were seen in >40% of all cases. Starting at a median age of 6 months, muscular hypotonia (91%) was seen, followed by progressive spasticity (82%, median onset = 15 months) and dystonia (82%, 18 months). The majority of affected individuals never learned to walk (68%). Seventy-nine percent suffered hearing loss, 58% never learned to speak, and nearly all had significant intellectual disability (88%). Magnetic resonance imaging features were accordingly homogenous, with bilateral basal ganglia involvement (98%); the characteristic "putaminal eye" was seen in 53%. The urinary marker 3-methylglutaconic aciduria was present in virtually all patients (98%). Supportive treatment focused on spasticity and drooling, and was effective in the individuals treated; hearing aids or cochlear implants did not improve communication skills.
INTERPRETATION: MEGDHEL syndrome is a progressive deafness-dystonia syndrome with frequent and reversible neonatal liver involvement and a strikingly homogenous course of disease. Ann Neurol 2017;82:1004-1015.
RECENT FINDINGS: Genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia is valuable to enhance diagnostic precision, cascade testing, risk prediction and the use of new medications. Hypertriglyceridaemia may be caused by rare recessive monogenic, or by polygenic, gene variants; genetic testing may be useful in the former, for which antisense therapy targeting apoC-III has been approved. Familial high-density lipoprotein deficiency is caused by specific genetic mutations, but there is no effective therapy. Familial combined hyperlipidaemia (FCHL) is caused by polygenic variants for which there is no specific gene testing panel. Familial dysbetalipoproteinaemia is less frequent and commonly caused by APOE ε2ε2 homozygosity; as with FCHL, it is responsive to lifestyle modifications and statins or/and fibrates. Elevated lipoprotein(a) is a quantitative genetic trait whose value in risk prediction over-rides genetic testing; treatment relies on RNA therapeutics.
SUMMARY: Genetic testing is not at present commonly available for managing dyslipidaemias. Rapidly advancing technology may presage wider use, but its worth will require demonstration of cost-effectiveness and a healthcare workforce trained in genomic medicine.