Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cancer Science logoLink to Cancer Science
. 2017 Apr 3;108(3):296–307. doi: 10.1111/cas.13156

Hepatocyte growth factor/MET in cancer progression and biomarker discovery

Kunio Matsumoto 1,✉, Masataka Umitsu 2, Dinuka M De Silva 3, Arpita Roy 3, Donald P Bottaro 3,✉
PMCID: PMC5378267  PMID: 28064454

Abstract

Signaling driven by hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and MET receptor facilitates conspicuous biological responses such as epithelial cell migration, 3‐D morphogenesis, and survival. The dynamic migration and promotion of cell survival induced by MET activation are bases for invasion–metastasis and resistance, respectively, against targeted drugs in cancers. Recent studies indicated that MET in tumor‐derived exosomes facilitates metastatic niche formation and metastasis in malignant melanoma. In lung cancer, gene amplification‐induced MET activation and ligand‐dependent MET activation in an autocrine/paracrine manner are causes for resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors and anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors. Hepatocyte growth factor secreted in the tumor microenvironment contributes to the innate and acquired resistance to RAF inhibitors. Changes in serum/plasma HGF, soluble MET (sMET), and phospho‐MET have been confirmed to be associated with disease progression, metastasis, therapy response, and survival. Higher serum/plasma HGF levels are associated with therapy resistance and/or metastasis, while lower HGF levels are associated with progression‐free survival and overall survival after treatment with targeted drugs in lung cancer, gastric cancer, colon cancer, and malignant melanoma. Urinary sMET levels in patients with bladder cancer are higher than those in patients without bladder cancer and associated with disease progression. Some of the multi‐kinase inhibitors that target MET have received regulatory approval, whereas none of the selective HGF‐MET inhibitors have shown efficacy in phase III clinical trials. Validation of the HGF‐MET pathway as a critical driver in cancer development/progression and utilization of appropriate biomarkers are key to development and approval of HGF‐MET inhibitors for clinical use.

Keywords: Biomarker, drug resistance, HGF, MET, receptor tyrosine kinase

The MET oncogene was first isolated on the basis of its transforming activity, caused by a fusion of genes composed of the translocated promoter region (TPR) locus on chromosome 1 and MET sequence on chromosome 7 (TPR‐MET).1 Isolation of the full‐length MET proto‐oncogene sequence revealed that it encoded a transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase (TK).2 MET was thereafter identified as the receptor for hepatocyte growth factor (HGF).3 Hepatocyte growth factor was identified and cloned as a mitogenic protein for hepatocytes,4, 5 while subsequent studies indicated that it was the same as scatter factor, an epithelial cell motility factor derived from fibroblasts and mesenchymal cells.6, 7, 8

Conspicuous responses that are driven by the HGF‐MET receptor pathway are dynamic 3‐D morphogenesis and survival of cells. The induction of epithelial branching tubulogenesis in a 3‐D collagen matrix by HGF had particular impact, because HGF was the first bioactive molecule to induce epithelial tubulogenesis.9 Impairment in the hepatic progenitor cell survival and the migration of myogenic precursor cells seen in MET knockout mice indicate potent actions of HGF in dynamic migration and promotion of cell survival.10 It was easy to speculate that the dynamic migration induced by HGF could also contribute critically to the biological basis of invasion and metastasis in tumor tissues. Meanwhile, involvement of the HGF‐MET pathway in acquisition of a resistant phenotype against molecular targeted drugs was elucidated.11, 12 The potent action of HGF to promote cell survival is a prevalent biological basis for drug resistance in cancers.

Both HGF and MET are targets in anticancer drug discovery.13 More than 10 different HGF‐MET inhibitors entered into clinical trials, many of which were completed with unsatisfactory results. Recently, previously overlooked mutations in MET, resulting in deletions in the cytoplasmic juxtamembrane (JM) domain, have been found to be potential oncoprotein in non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Clinical studies have indicated favorable responses to MET inhibitors in patients with this variant MET.14, 15 We describe here recent progress in HGF‐MET research on tumor biology and biomarker discovery.

Structures and Regulation of HGF‐MET

The mature form of MET is composed of a 50‐kDa β‐chain and 145‐kDa α‐chain (Fig. 1a). The extracellular region is composed of SEMA, plexin–semaphorin–integrin (PSI), and immunoglobulin‐like fold–plexin–transcription factor (IPT)1–IPT4 domains. The intracellular region contains JM and TK domains. The binding of HGF to MET induces MET clustering and phosphorylation of Y1234 and Y1235, followed by phosphorylation of Y1349 and Y1356 in the carboxyl terminal region, to which adaptor molecules associate and transmit signals downstream.7, 8, 13 Hepatocyte growth factor is secreted as a single‐chain precursor (pro‐HGF) and extracellular processing into a two‐chain mature HGF is coupled to the activation of HGF (Fig. 1b). Hepatocyte growth factor‐activator and matriptase are the main proteases responsible for the processing of HGF.16 Hepatocyte growth factor binds to MET through two interfaces: the NK1 (N‐terminal and first kringle domains) binds with high affinity whereas the β‐chain binds with low affinity. The structure of the complex between the β‐chain of HGF and the SEMA‐PSI domains of MET were revealed by crystallographic analysis (Fig. 1c).17 The activation of MET receptor by bivalent MET‐binding macrocyclic peptides indicate that stable dimerization of MET with ligands of appropriate length provides a fundamental structural basis for activation of MET.18

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Structures of MET (a), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) (b), and the complex between the β‐chain of HGF and SEMA and plexin–semaphorin–integrin (PSI) domains of MET (c). In (a), tyrosine residues (Y1234, Y1235, Y1349, and Y1356) phosphorylated following HGF stimulation in the tyrosine kinase (TK) domain are shown in blue. In (c), positions of missense mutations found in cancer patients are indicated by red balls. The image of PDB ID 1SHY (Stamos J, Lazarus RA, Yao X, Kirchhofer D, Wiesmann C. Crystal structure of the HGF β‐chain in complex with the Sema domain of the Met receptor. EMBO J. 23: 2325, 2004) was created with PyMOL.

The JM domain, which is composed of 47 highly conserved amino acids, contains two protein phosphorylation sites and acts as a negative regulator in terms of MET‐dependent signal transduction. One is Y1003 phosphorylation and the other is S985 phosphorylation. The CBL ubiquitin ligase binds phosphorylated Y1003, and this CBL binding results in MET ubiquitination, endocytosis, and degradation.19 The CBL‐mediated degradation of activated MET provides a mechanism that either attenuates or terminates MET‐mediated signaling. Ser985 is phosphorylated by protein kinase‐C and is dephosphorylated by protein phosphatase‐2A.20 When MET‐S985 is phosphorylated, HGF‐induced MET activation and subsequent biological responses are suppressed.20

Metastasis and Tumor Microenvironment

A definitive role of stromal fibroblasts in invasion of cancer cells into 3‐D collagen was first noted using human oral squamous cell carcinoma cells,21 and subsequent study indicated neutralization of HGF inhibited 3‐D invasion induced by stromal fibroblasts. Independently, induction of invasiveness into collagen by HGF/scatter factor was noted during characterization of scatter factor.6 These early studies showed the importance of HGF as a fibroblast‐derived factor that facilitates the aggressive invasion of cancer cells.

The metastatic tumor microenvironment (premetastatic/metastatic niche) emerged as an important player in metastatic colonization and growth. A variety of stromal cells, such as macrophages, inflammatory cells, endothelial cells, and cancer‐associated fibroblasts contribute to the formation of the metastatic microenvironment.22 Growth factors play promoting roles in forming the metastatic microenvironment. Hepatocyte growth factor functions as a stromal cell‐derived factor that strongly influences cancer cell invasiveness in the tumor microenvironment.22 Selective inhibition of the HGF‐MET pathway suppressed metastasis in experimental models.7, 8, 13

A recent topic in cancer metastasis is the involvement of exosomes in metastasis.23 MET in exosomes promotes metastatic microenvironment formation in metastatic melanoma (Fig. 2).23 The exosomes from highly metastatic mouse and human melanoma cells contained high levels of MET, and exosomes in circulation localized to sites of metastatic tissues and increased vascular permeability, which promotes the migration of tumor cells. The exosomes also increased activated MET in bone marrow‐derived cells, thereby being reprogrammed to a proangiogenic phenotype, and the bone marrow‐derived cells mobilized to lungs where they could aid angiogenesis, invasion, and metastasis. Administration of exosomes that contained high levels of MET facilitated metastasis of melanoma cells with lower metastatic ability.24

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Outline of the mechanism for metastasis promoted by the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)‐MET pathway and tumor‐derived exosomes in advanced metastatic melanoma. Peinado et al. showed that tumor‐derived exosomes from advanced metastatic melanoma contained high levels of MET, and the exosomes induced an increase in the phosphorylated/activated MET in bone marrow‐derived cells, thereby resulting in a mobilization of the bone marrow‐derived cells to the lungs and lymph nodes, where they initiated metastatic niche formation.28 Collectively, HGF facilitates local invasion, extravasation, and intravasation, and MET in exosomes facilitates angiogenesis and metastatic niche formation.

Drug Resistance

The tumor microenvironment participates not only in cancer metastasis but also resistance to molecular‐targeted drugs. Stromal cells influenced the sensitivity to anticancer drugs, and proteomic analysis revealed that stromal cell‐derived HGF is a predominant factor that confers resistance to molecular‐targeted drugs such as RAF inhibitor.25 The biochemical basis as to how HGF so potently promotes survival as well as cell motility might relate to the adaptor protein GRB2‐associated binding protein 1 (GAB1). The GAB1 protein has a unique recognition structure “MET‐binding domain” that mediates its binding to phosphorylated MET.26 Indeed, phenotypes in MET−/− and GAB1−/− mice showed extensive similarities.27

Non‐small‐cell lung cancer patients developed acquired resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) TK inhibitors (TKIs) within a few years, and 20–25% of the patients showed intrinsic resistance to EGFR‐TKIs. As an acquired resistance mechanism, the T790M second mutation in EGFR occurs in approximately half of all patients.28 As a bypass pathway, MET activation caused by MET gene amplification11 and HGF‐dependent MET activation12 have been noted as mechanisms by which NSCLC acquires resistance to EGFR‐TKIs. MET gene amplification was detected in 5–10% of patients with acquired resistance to EGFR‐TKIs, and overexpression of HGF was seen in approximately 61% and 29% of patients with acquired and intrinsic resistance, respectively.29

After the discovery of EML4‐ALK as a driver oncogene in patients with NSCLC,30 alectinib was developed as a selective anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) TKI.31 Based on its high objective response rate, long median progression‐free survival, and favorable toxicity profile, alectinib has been approved in Japan and the USA. However, patients eventually acquire resistance to alectinib. Among several different mechanisms, alectinib‐resistant EML4‐ALK‐positive NSCLC cells can acquire the ability to express HGF and the ensuing autocrine activation of MET caused by cancer cell‐derived HGF confers acquired resistance to alectinib.32 Collectively, the expression of HGF in cancer cells and/or stromal cells in the tumor microenvironment participates in the resistance to EGFR and ALK TKIs.

MET Mutations

The tight association between MET mutation and cancer development was first reported in hereditary and sporadic forms of papillary renal cell carcinoma.33 Germline and somatic missense mutations (M1131T, V1188L, L1195V, V1220I, D1228N/H, Y1230C/H, M1250T/I) located in the TK domain of MET are found in papillary renal carcinomas (Fig. 3), and these are likely to be gain‐of‐function mutations. Missense mutations have been found in childhood hepatocellular carcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, ovarian cancer, and small‐cell lung cancer.34

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

MET mutations found in cancer patients. (a) Positions of missense and deletion mutations in each domain of MET. The deletion mutations in extracellular immunoglobulin‐like fold–plexin–transcription factor (IPT) domains and the intracellular juxtamembrane (JM) domain are caused by exon skipping.43, 44, 45 (b) Crystal structures of MET tyrosine kinase (TK) domain and positions of missense activating mutations found in patients with papillary renal cell carcinoma. Amino acids changed by missense mutations are indicated by red balls. The autoinhibited form (left panel, PDB ID 2G15) and crizotinib (a dual inhibitor for anaplastic lymphoma kinase and MET) bound form (right panel, PDB ID 2WGJ) are shown. The structural change of the activation loop (A1221–K1248, colored red) occurs following Y1234/Y1235 phosphorylation and upregulates enzymatic activity. The images of PDB ID 2G15 (left) (Wang W, Marimuthu A, Tsai J, Kumar A, Krupka HI, Zhang C, Powell B, Suzuki Y, Nguyen H, Tabrizizad M, Luu C, West BL. Structural characterization of autoinhibited c‐Met kinase produced by coexpression in bacteria with phosphatase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 103: 3563‐3568, 2006) and PDB ID 2WGJ (right) (Cui JJ, Tran‐Dubé M, Shen H, Nambu M, Kung PP, Pairish M, Jia L, Meng J, Funk L, Botrous I, McTigue M, Grodsky N, Ryan K, Padrique E, Alton G, Timofeevski S, Yamazaki S, Li Q, Zou H, Christensen J, Mroczkowski B, Bender S, Kania RS, Edwards MP. Structure based drug design of crizotinib (PF‐02341066), a potent and selective dual inhibitor of mesenchymal‐epithelial transition factor (c‐MET) kinase and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK). J Med Chem. 54: 6342‐6363, 2011) were created with PyMOL.

The JM‐deleted MET generated by exon 14 skipping (MET‐Δexon14) due to intronic mutations was noted in NSCLC cancer tissues and cells.35 The expression of MET‐Δexon14 in cells resulted in the loss of association with the CBL E3 ubiquitin ligase, decreased ubiquitination and prolonged activation of signaling molecules.35 Considering the notion that MET‐Y1003 phosphorylation in the JM domain provides CBL‐binding for ubiquitination, MET‐Δexon14 variant may have a longer lifespan in terms of protein stability and signaling.

Another mutant variant of MET with deleted extracellular IPT domains was found in approximately 6% of high‐grade gliomas.36 The mutation is caused by intronic mutations and the skipping of exon 7 (encoding a part of IPT1) and exon 8 (encoding a part of IPT2) generates a single pseudo‐IPT domain. This MET exon 7–8 skipping variant is mainly present as an unprocessed single chain form and located in the cytoplasm, suggesting an impairment in biosynthetic processing and subsequent translocation to the cell membrane. Missense mutations in MET have been found in a variety of cancers, and the positions of mutational changes are located not only in the intracellular domains, but also extracellular regions (Figs 1C,3A). The significance of these extracellular mutations is unknown.

Discovery of HGF/MET as Biomarkers

Collectively, HGF and sMET in blood, tissues, and/or urine are associated with changes in tumor characteristics and therapeutic responses in several types of tumors, indicating the significance of HGF, sMET, and related molecules as possible biomarkers for evaluation of tumor characteristics and therapeutic responses (Table 1). A substantial number of reports have documented increased circulating levels of HGF in a wide spectrum of cancers, and robust and sensitive immunoassays of soluble HGF protein have become widely available. Inflammatory mediators, including interleukin‐1α (IL‐1α), IL‐1β, tumor necrosis factor‐α, and prostaglandin E2 increase gene expression of HGF in stromal cells.37 Because these inflammatory mediators are increased in the tumor microenvironment and contribute to a drug‐resistant and/or metastatic tumor microenvironment, it is likely that these inflammatory mediators participate in upregulation of HGF in tumors.

Table 1.

Changes in serum/plasma/tissue hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) levels, soluble MET, and MET expression/phosphorylation in tumors

Tumor type Subtype, specification Marker type Changes and significance as biomarkers References
Gastric cancer Resection Serum HGF Higher preoperative HGF levels than the control group (391 vs 193 pg/mL) 41
Response to trastuzumab Serum HGF Lower HGF levels in the responsive group (PR+SD) than in those with PD. Association between high HGF levels with worse OS 42
Helicobacter pylori‐infected Plasma sMET Lower sMET levels compared to matched controls (1.390 vs 1.610 ng/mL) 43
Resection Serum sMET, tissue MET, serum and tissue HGF Association between advanced progression and preoperative serum HGF. Correlation of tissue MET with lymphatic vessel invasion, lymph node metastasis, maximum tumor diameter, and OS. No correlation between serum HGF and tissue HGF or MET content 42
Lung cancer Small‐cell lung cancer Serum HGF Higher HGF levels compared to healthy individuals (1886 pg/mL vs 1131 pg/mL). Association between higher HGF levels and worse PFS and liver metastases. Increased HGF levels at progression after two to three cycles of chemotherapy. Longer OS in patients with decreased HGF levels at response time from baseline levels than patients with increased levels. Shorter OS in patients with higher HGF levels than those with lower HGF levels. Association with tumor epithelial–mesenchymal transition markers in patients with high HGF levels (>median) 44
Small‐cell lung cancer Serum HGF Higher HGF levels compared to and healthy subjects. No difference with cancer stage 45
Small‐cell lung cancer Tissue MET, tissue pMET MET overexpression and increased pMET in 54% and 43% patients, respectively. Correlation between pMET status and OS 46
Lung adenocarcinoma Tissue HGF High HGF immunoreactivity in patients with acquired gefitinib resistance in the absence of T790M EGFR mutation and MET gene amplification. Low HGF immunoreactivity in majority of responders to gefitinib 12
Lung adenocarcinoma Plasma HGF High HGF levels in 13% of patients resistant to EGFR‐TKI without detectable T790M circulating DNA. High HGF levels in 25% of patients resistant to EGFR‐TKI with detectable T790M circulating DNA 47
Lung adenocarcinoma Plasma HGF Higher HGF levels than normal and pretreatment with EGFR‐TKI. Increase after administration of EGFR‐TKI. Higher HGF levels in patients with PD compared to PR and SD (724.1 ± 216.4 pg/mL vs 381.7 ± 179.0 pg/mL and 396.5 ± 148.3 pg/mL, respectively) 48
Lung adenocarcinoma Plasma HGF Higher HGF levels in gefitinib non‐responders than in responders. Association between low HGF levels and longer RFS and OS independent of EGFR mutation status 49
Lung adenocarcinoma Plasma sMET, tissue MET Association between sMET and tissue MET expression level. Decrease in sMET levels after surgical resection to levels close to those in disease‐free volunteers 50
Lung adenocarcinoma Plasma sMET, tissue MET Association between sMET levels and tissue MET expression levels in advanced patients. Association between high sMET levels and poor OS (9.5 vs 22.2 months) 51
Breast cancer Stage II/III Serum HGF Higher HGF levels in CR or PR in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy doxorubicin and docetaxel. Longer RFS in patients with highest HGF levels when HGF levels were divided into four groups 52
Tissue HGF Association between high tissue HGF levels and lymph node metastasis. Higher sensitivity to chemotherapy (CR, PR, and SD) in HGF‐low patients than in HGF‐high patients 53
Meta‐analysis MET levels Association between MET overexpression and worse PFS compared to normal expression 54
Breast cancer cell lines Reverse phase protein array Higher pMET (Y1234/35) levels in triple‐negative (negative for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and ERBB2/HER2) cases 55
Tissue MET and pMET by reverse phase protein array Determination of dichotomized values of MET and pMET as significant prognostic factors for RFS and OS. Association between high MET levels and worse RFS and OS in hormone receptor‐positive cases. Association between high pMET levels and worse RFS and OS in HER2‐positive cases. Higher risk of recurrence and death in patients with high MET. Higher risk of recurrence in patients with high pMET 56
Prostate cancer Plasma HGF Higher median HGF level in prostate cancer patients compared to control group (505 vs 397 pg/mL). Higher HGF levels in subset of patients with lymph node and/or seminal invasion 57
Urinary sMET Higher sMET levels in patients with metastatic cancer than in localized cancer 58
Plasma sMET Higher sMET levels in patients than those in healthy group 40
Renal cell carcinoma Clear cell type Serum HGF Higher HGF levels in patients than healthy individuals. Higher median HGF level in stage 3–4 than stage 1–2 (1252.9 vs 948.7 pg/mL). Higher HGF levels in patients with distant metastasis than those without metastasis (1375 vs 836.6 pg/mL) 59
Clinical trial with pazopanib Plasma HGF Correlation between low HGF baseline level and larger decrease in tumor burden after pazopanib treatment. Correlation between low baseline HGF levels and PFS (48.1 vs 32.1 weeks) 60
Clinical trial with rilotumumab Plasma HGF and sMET, tissue MET No correlation of these values with treatment efficacy 61
Malignant melanoma Serum HGF Higher HGF levels in advanced disease. Higher HGF levels in patients with progressive disease. Correlation of baseline high level (above median) with lower PFS and OS 62
Serum sMET Lower sMET levels in metastasis‐free patients and healthy donors than those with metastatic disease. Superior changes in sMET than those in lactate hydrogenase and S100 for liver function 63
Multiple myeloma HGF mRNA in bone marrow Higher HGF mRNA expression levels in patients than those of healthy individuals. No relation to the number of myeloma cells 64
Serum HGF Higher median HGF levels at diagnosis vs in remission (2001 vs 1049 pg/mL); Higher median HGF levels in relapsed vs in remission patients (1370 vs 1049 pg/mL) 65
Serum sMET No significant difference in sMET between patients and healthy individuals; Negative correlations of sMET with disease stage and bone marrow plasma cell percentage 66
Colon cancer Patients underwent carcinoma resection Serum HGF Correlation of higher HGF levels with advanced stage (stage III/IV), tumor size, lymph node metastasis, and distant metastasis. Poor prognosis in patients with elevated HGF 67
Metastatic cancer, treated with anti‐EGFR antibody KRAS wild‐type Serum HGF Correlation between low HGF levels and longer PFS and OS 68
Hepatocellular carcinoma Serum HGF Correlation between higher HGF levels post‐hepatectomy with metastasis. Higher HGF levels in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma than those with C‐viral chronic hepatitis or liver cirrhosis 69, 70, 71
Serum HGF Higher pre‐hepatectomy portal HGF levels than peripheral HGF levels. Higher post‐hepatectomy portal HGF levels compared to pre‐hepatectomy portal levels 69
Metastatic patients treated with sorafenib ± erlotinib Plasma HGF Correlation of higher baseline HGF levels with poor OS regardless of treatment compared to those with lower HGF levels 72
Clinical trial of tivantinib Serum HGF Correlation of low baseline HGF with longer OS. Longer OS in patients treated with tivantinib with low HGF than in those with high HGF 73
Ovarian cancer Serum HGF Higher preoperative HGF levels than those with benign tumors or borderline tumors. Higher HGF levels in advanced‐stage (III/IV) patients than those in early stage (I/II). Correlation of higher preoperative HGF levels with lower OS (23 vs 41 months). Longer disease‐free survival in patients with low preoperative HGF 74
Bladder cancer Urinary sMET Higher sMET levels in bladder cancer patients compared to individuals in the same urology clinic but negative for any genitourinary malignancy. Distinguishable by urinary sMET between bladder cancer patients with muscle‐invasive disease from those with non‐muscle‐invasive disease 75
Glioma Treated by radiotherapy Serum HGF Lower median serum HGF in patients with high and moderately differentiated tumors than those with poorly differentiated tumors (964.8 pg/mL vs 1576.1 pg/mL). Different median time to progression (6 vs 17 months) for patients with HGF levels below vs above value of overall median serum HGF level (1219.5 pg/mL) 76
Open in a new tab

CR, complete response; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; ERBB2, Erb‐B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; OS, overall survival; PD, progressive disease; PFS, progression‐free survival; pMET, phosphorylated MET; PR, partial response; RFS, relapse‐free survival; SD, stable disease; sMET, soluble MET; TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

MET gene amplification and/or protein overexpression also frequently occur in cancer, which has accelerated investigations into MET gene copy number in tumors or by circulating soluble DNA, as well as MET protein content and phosphorylation (activation) state in tumor samples using a variety of approaches. Technical difficulties associated with the lability of MET and phospho‐MET in formalin‐fixed, paraffin‐embedded samples have hindered the development of clinically validated assays for use with archival tumor specimens, but recently reported assays for use with flash‐frozen biopsy samples have provided reliable alternatives.38 Athauda et al.39 developed two‐site electrochemiluminescent immunoassays of MET in flash‐frozen samples and sMET ectodomain for plasma, serum, and urine samples, later adapting the assay to detect phospho‐MET.40 Efforts along these lines have identified specific contexts in which HGF/MET signaling contributes to cancer, and for some cancers, may help identify those patients in whom pathway inhibition is likely to have therapeutic benefit.

Experimental Cancer Therapeutics Targeting the HGF/MET Pathway

The prevalence of HGF/MET pathway activation in human malignancies has driven rapid growth in drug development programs. The most advanced agents currently under development as HGF/MET pathway inhibitors include mAbs directed at HGF and low molecular weight compounds that competitively antagonize ATP binding to MET (Table 2). Although some of the multi‐kinase inhibitors that target MET have received regulatory approval in several indications, it remains unclear whether the MET kinase is a primary target. None of the more selective MET inhibitors have shown efficacy in phase II or III clinical trials, although few of these agents have reached this level of development.

Table 2.

Clinical trials of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)‐MET inhibitors

Drug Design Phase Patient population Combinations
INCB28060/(INC280) Safety/tolerability I c‐MET‐dependent advanced solid tumors
Cabozantinib (XL184) Safety/PK I Hepatic impaired adult subjects
Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Safety/efficacy II NSCLC Bevacizumab/platinum/paclitaxel and pemetrexed/platinum
Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Safety/efficacy II NSCLC Paclitaxel/platinum
Cabozantinib (XL184) Safety/efficacy III Previously treated, symptomatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer Mitoxantrone/prednisone
Crizotinib (PF02341066) Safety/efficacy II Altered ALK and/or MET in locally advanced and/or metastatic anaplastic large cell lymphoma, inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor, papillary renal cell carcinoma type 1, alveolar soft part sarcoma, clear cell sarcoma, and alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma
Crizotinib (PF02341066) Safety/efficacy I Advanced malignancies Vemurafenib, sorafenib
INCB28060/(INC280) Safety I Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors
Crizotinib (PF02341066) Safety/efficacy I Advanced malignancies Pemetrexed or pazopanib
Cabozantinib (XL184) Safety/efficacy I Multiple myeloma with bone disease
Cabozantinib (XL184) Efficacy II Solid tumors
Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Safety/efficacy II Gastric cancer mFOLFOX6
Cabozantinib (XL184) Efficacy II Castration‐resistant prostate cancer with bone metastases
LY2875358 Safety I Japanese participants with advanced cancer Erlotinib or gefitinib
Cabozantinib (XL184) Safety/efficacy III Metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel and abiraterone or MDV3100 Prednisone
Crizotinib (PF02341066) Safety I Younger patients with relapsed or refractory solid tumors or anaplastic large cell lymphoma Cyclophosphamide, dexrazoxane, doxorubicin, topotecan, vincristine
INCB28060/(INC280) Safety/efficacy Ib/II NSCLC, EGFR‐mutated, c‐MET‐amplified, EGFR‐inhibitor insensitive Gefitinib
Cabozantinib (XL184) Safety/efficacy II Advanced NSCLC, KIF5B/RET‐positive
Crizotinib (PF02341066) Safety/efficacy I Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma, high grade glioma, pediatric Dasatinib
SAR125844 Safety/efficacy/PD I Asian advanced malignant solid tumor patients
Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Safety/efficacy III Metastatic gastric cancer, HER2−, Met‐positive mFOLFOX6
Cabozantinib (XL184) Expanded access Medullary thyroid cancer
Cabozantinib (XL184) Safety I Advanced prostate cancer Docetaxel, prednisone
Cabozantinib (XL184) Efficacy II Advanced urothelial cancer
Rilotumumab (AMG 102) Efficacy III Locally advanced/metastatic gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma
Cabozantinib (XL184) Efficacy III Castration‐resistant prostate cancer
Cabozantinib (XL184) Efficacy II Stage IV NSCLC, EGFR wild‐type Erlotinib
Crizotinib (PF02341066) Safety/efficacy I/II NSCLC HSP90 inhibitor AT13387
Cabozantinib (XL184) Efficacy II Persistent or recurrent ovarian epithelial cancer, fallopian tube, or peritoneal cancer Randomized vs paclitaxel
BMS‐777607 (ASLAN002) Safety I Advanced or metastatic solid tumors
INCB28060 (INC280) Safety/efficacy II Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with c‐MET dysregulation
Cabozantinib (XL184) Safety/efficacy II Metastatic triple‐negative breast cancer
Cabozantinib (XL184) Efficacy II Adults with advanced soft tissue sarcoma
Volitinib savolitinib/AZD6094/HMPL‐50 Safety/PK I Advanced solid tumors
Rilotumumab (AMG 102) Safety/efficacy I/Ib Japanese subjects with advanced solid tumors or advanced or metastatic gastric or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma
MSC2156119J/EMD1214063 Safety/efficacy I Solid tumors
Cabozantinib (XL184) Efficacy II Castration‐resistant prostate cancer with visceral metastases
Met RNA CAR T cells Safety/efficacy I Metastatic breast cancer, triple‐negative breast cancer
Cabozantinib (XL184) Safety/efficacy III Subjects with metastatic renal cell carcinoma Randomized vs everolimus
INCB28060 (INC280) Safety/efficacy Ib/II Recurrent glioblastoma Buparlisib
LY2875358 Efficacy II Gastric cancer
Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Safety/efficacy III Met‐positive, stage IIIb or IV NSCLC with activating EGFR mutation Erlotinib
Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Safety/PK Ib Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma Alone or sorafenib
LY2875358 Efficacy II NSCLC with activating EGFR mutations Erlotinib
LY2875358 Efficacy II NSCLC Erlotinib
Cabozantinib (XL184) Safety/efficacy III Subjects with hepatocellular carcinoma who have received prior sorafenib treatment Randomized vs placebo
INCB28060 (INC280) Safety I Met‐positive NSCLC Erlotinib
MGCD265 Safety I Healthy subjects in fasting state
INCB28060 (INC280) Safety/efficacy II Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after progression or sorafenib intolerance
Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Safety/PK Ib Advanced solid malignancies Vemurafenib, and/or cobimetinib
LY2801653 PK/radiolabeled I Healthy participants
MSC2156119J Safety/efficacy I/II Advanced NSCLC Gefitinib
MSC2156119J Safety/efficacy I/II Asian subjects with hepatocellular carcinoma
Crizotinib (PF02341066) Safety I Advanced solid tumors Axitinib
AMG 337 Efficacy II MET‐amplified gastric/esophageal adenocarcinoma or other solid tumors
INCB28060 (INC280) Efficacy II Papillary renal cell carcinoma
Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Safety/efficacy I Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors
Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Efficacy III Met‐positive, incurable stage IIIb or IV NSCLC Erlotinib
Foretinib (GSK1363089) Efficacy II Genomic subpopulations of NSCLC
LY2875358 Safety/efficacy I/II Advanced cancer Ramucirumab
AMG 337 Safety/efficacy I/II Advanced solid tumor, gastric/esophageal adenocarcinoma or other solid tumors
MSC2156119J Safety/efficacy I/II Second‐line hepatocellular carcinoma
Volitinib Savolitinib/AZD6094/HMPL‐50 Safety/efficacy II Papillary renal cell cancer
Crizotinib (PF02341066) Efficacy II Patients with stage IV NSCLC that has progressed after crizotinib treatment Pemetrexed disodium
Rilotumumab (AMG 102) Efficacy III Gastric cancer Cisplatin and capecitabine vs placebo
Volitinib Savolitinib/AZD6094/HMPL‐50 Safety/efficacy Ib EGFR mutation‐positive advanced lung cancer AZD9291
INCB28060 (INC280) Safety/efficacy/PK I Squamous cell carcinoma of head and neck Cetuximab
INCB28060 (INC280) Safety/efficacy/PK II Metastatic colorectal cancer
INCB28060 (INC280) Safety/efficacy II Chinese patients with advanced NSCLC
Ficlatuzumab (AV‐299) Safety/efficacy I Ficlatuzumab, cisplatin, and IMRT in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck Cisplatin and intensity modulated radiotherapy
Ficlatuzumab (AV‐299) Safety/efficacy I Recurrent/metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck Cetuximab
SAIT301 Safety I Subjects with advanced c‐MET‐positive solid tumors followed by expansion in selected tumor types
AMG 337 Safety/efficacy I/II Advanced stomach or esophageal cancer Fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, leucovorin
Volitinib Savolitinib/AZD6094/HMPL‐50 Safety/PK/preliminary efficacy 1b EGFR mutation‐positive NSCLC patients that progressed on EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor Gefitinib
INCB28060 (INC280) Efficacy II Advanced NSCLC patients that have received one or two prior lines of therapy
Crizotinib (PF02341066) Safety/efficacy
Volitinib Savolitinib/AZD6094/HMPL‐50 Safety/efficacy II Advanced gastric adenocarcinoma patients with MET overexpression as a second‐line treatment Docetaxel
Volitinib Savolitinib/AZD6094/HMPL‐50 Safety/efficacy Ib/II Phase 1b in any solid cancer and sequential phase II in advanced gastric adenocarcinoma patients with MET amplification as a second line treatment Docetaxel
Volitinib Savolitinib/AZD6094/HMPL‐50 Safety/efficacy II Advanced gastric adenocarcinoma patients with MET amplification as a third‐line treatment
INCB28060 (INC280) Drug–drug interaction: PK of midazolam and caffeine I Patients with MET‐dysregulated advanced solid tumors Midazolam, caffeine
Crizotinib (PF02341066) Safety/efficacy II Met or Ron‐positive metastatic urothelial cancer
INCB28060 (INC280) Drug–drug interaction: PK of digoxin and rosuvastatin I Patients with MET‐dysregulated advanced solid tumors Digoxin, rosuvastatin
Volitinib Savolitinib/AZD6094/HMPL‐50 Safety/PK I Ras wild‐type colorectal cancer Cetuximab
Volitinib Savolitinib/AZD6094/HMPL‐50 Safety/efficacy I Locally advanced or metastatic kidney cancer Randomized multi‐arm study comparing cabozantinib, crizotinib, volitinib, or sunitinib
Rilotumumab (AMG 102) Efficacy III Stage IV SCLC Hydrochloride or erlotinib
INC280 Safety/efficacy I Glioblastoma multiforme, gliosarcoma, colorectal cancer, renal cell carcinoma
Capmatinib (INC280) Safety II Malignant NSCLC with exon14 alteration
JNJ‐38877605 Safety/efficacy I Advanced or refractory solid tumors
SGX523 Safety/efficacy I Advanced cancer
Open in a new tab

Experimental therapeutics (left column) are listed by generic name or alphanumeric identifier. For brevity, this table lists only those trials not tabulated in a prior comprehensive review by Cecchi et al.13 A complete listing of trials with links to several relevant cancer information sources can be found online (https://ccrod.cancer.gov/confluence/display/CCRHGF/Home). ALK, anaplastic lymphoma kinase; EGFR, epidermal growth factor receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; HSP90, heat shock protein 90; IMRT, intensity‐modulated radiation therapy; mFOLFOX6, 5‐fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin; NSCLC, non‐small‐cell lung cancer; PD, pharmacodynamics; PK, pharmacokinetics; SCLC, small‐cell lung cancer.

A recent topic in HGF/MET pathway inhibition is clinical studies in lung cancer patients with MET‐Δexon14 alteration. Paik et al.14 reported that MET‐Δexon14 mutation is approximately 4% of lung adenocarcinoma, and three out of four patients with stage IV lung adenocarcinomas harboring MET‐Δexon14 mutation had a response to MET TKI. Among 38 028 cancer patients, MET‐Δexon14 mutations were found in 221 cases, and MET‐Δexon14 mutations are detected most frequently in lung adenocarcinoma (3%), but also frequently in other lung neoplasms (2.3%) and brain glioma (0.4%).15 In 11 205 lung cancers profiled by comprehensive genomic profiling, 298 (2.7%) carcinomas harbored MET‐Δexon14 alterations.77 Eight patients harboring MET‐Δexon14 showed controlled responses, including four cases with partial responses, two cases with complete responses, and two cases with stable disease.77 Among 1296 Chinese patients with NSCLC, 12 patients (0.9%) had MET‐Δexon14 mutation, suggesting a difference in frequency by ethnicity.78 It is anticipated that ongoing clinical studies will reveal the significance of MET‐Δexon14 alteration as a biomarker and therapeutic target for clinical use of HGF‐MET inhibitors.

Conclusions

Therapeutic resistance and metastasis are major obstacles to achieving durable clinical responses with molecular‐targeted therapies. Signaling pathways driven by HGF and MET participate in invasion, metastasis, and resistance to molecular‐targeted drugs. Although selective MET inhibitors have yet shown efficacy in phase II and III clinical trials, ongoing clinical trials have indicated favorable response to MET inhibitors in patients with NSCLC expressing variant MET deleted within the JM domain. Biomarker discovery and the utilization of appropriate biomarkers to validate HGF‐MET signaling as a driver in cancer development, metastasis, and drug resistance appears to be key for regulatory approval of HGF‐MET inhibitors for clinical use.

Because HGF is biosynthesized as a zymogen‐like single chain inactive precursor (capable of MET binding but incapable of MET activation) and the processing to two‐chain HGF is coupled to its activation, the measurement and evaluation of HGF activation is also key to understanding the tumor microenvironment that permits tumor metastasis and drug resistance. In the future, elucidation of the 3‐D structure(s) of the HGF‐MET complex and the MET activation process will provide an opportunity to discover molecular tools applicable to sensitive and specific detection of activation of HGF and MET for diagnosis and evaluation of therapeutics.

Disclosure Statement

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

Research in K.M.'s laboratory was supported by KAKENHI Grant Number 15K14473 by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and by the Project for Cancer Research and Therapeutic Evolution (P‐CREATE) by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development. Research in D.B.'s laboratory was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research.

Cancer Sci 108 (2017) 296–307

Funding Information

Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (15K14473); Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development; US National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research.

Contributor Information

Kunio Matsumoto, Email: kmatsu@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp.

Donald P. Bottaro, Email: don.bottaro@nih.gov

References

  • 1. Cooper CS, Park M, Blair DG et al Molecular cloning of a new transforming gene from a chemically transformed human cell line. Nature 1984; 311: 29–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Park M, Dean M, Kaul K, Braun MJ, Gonda MA, Vande Woude G. Sequence of MET protooncogene cDNA has features characteristic of the tyrosine kinase family of growth‐factor receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1987; 84: 6379–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Bottaro DP, Rubin JS, Faletto DL et al Identification of the hepatocyte growth factor receptor as the c‐met proto‐oncogene product. Science 1991; 251: 802–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Nakamura T, Nishizawa T, Hagiya M et al Molecular cloning and expression of human hepatocyte growth factor. Nature 1989; 342: 440–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Miyazawa K, Tsubouchi H, Naka D et al Molecular cloning and sequence analysis of cDNA for human hepatocyte growth factor. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1989; 163: 967–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Weidner KM, Behrens J, Vandekerckhove J, Birchmeier W. Scatter factor: molecular characteristics and effect on the invasiveness of epithelial cells. J Cell Biol 1990; 111: 2097–108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Gherardi E, Birchmeier W, Birchmeier C, Vande Woude GF. Targeting MET in cancer: rationale and progress. Nat Rev Cancer 2012; 12: 89–103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Sakai K, Aoki S, Matsumoto K. Hepatocyte growth factor and Met in drug discovery. J Biochem 2015; 157: 271–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Montesano R, Matsumoto K, Nakamura T, Orci L. Identification of a fibroblast‐derived epithelial morphogen as hepatocyte growth factor. Cell 1991; 67: 901–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Bladt F, Riethmacher D, Isenmann S, Aguzzi A, Birchmeier C. Essential role for the c‐met receptor in the migration of myogenic precursor cells into the limb bud. Nature 1995; 376: 768–71. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Engelman JA, Zejnullahu K, Mitsudomi T et al MET amplification leads to gefitinib resistance in lung cancer by activating ERBB3 signaling. Science, 2007; 316: 1039–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Yano S, Wang W, Li Q et al Hepatocyte growth factor induces gefitinib resistance of lung adenocarcinoma with epidermal growth factor receptor activating mutations. Cancer Res 2008; 68: 9479–87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Cecchi F, Rabe DC, Bottaro DP. Targeting the HGF/Met signaling pathway in cancer therapy. Expert Opin Ther Targets 2012; 16: 553–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Paik PK, Drilon A, Fan PD et al Response to MET inhibitors in patients with stage IV lung adenocarcinomas harboring MET mutations causing exon 14 skipping. Cancer Discov 2015; 5: 842–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Frampton GM, Ali SM, Rosenzweig M 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. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Kawaguchi M, Kataoka H. Mechanisms of hepatocyte growth factor activation in cancer tissues. Cancers 2014; 6: 1890–904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Stamos J, Lazarus RA, Yao X, Kirchhofer D, Wiesmann C. Crystal structure of the HGF β‐chain in complex with the Sema domain of the Met receptor. EMBO J 2004; 23: 2325–35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Ito K, Sakai K, Suzuki Y et al Artificial human Met agonists based on macrocycle scaffolds. Nat Commun 2015; 6: 6373. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Peschard P, Fournier TM, Lamorte L et al Mutation of the c‐Cbl TKB domain binding site on the Met receptor tyrosine kinase converts it into a transforming protein. Mol Cell 2001; 8: 995–1004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Nakayama M, Sakai K, Yamashita A, Nakamura T, Suzuki Y, Matsumoto K. Met/HGF receptor activation is regulated by juxtamembrane Ser985 phosphorylation in hepatocytes. Cytokine 2013; 62: 446–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Matsumoto K, Horikoshi M, Rikimaru K, Enomoto S. A study of an in vitro model for invasion of oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Oral Pathol Med 1989; 18: 498–501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Cirri P, Chiarugi P. Cancer‐associated‐fibroblasts and tumour cells: a diabolic liaison driving cancer progression. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2012; 31: 195–208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Peinado H, Alečković M, Lavotshkin S et al Melanoma exosomes educate bone marrow progenitor cells toward a pro‐metastatic phenotype through MET. Nat Med 2012; 18: 883–91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Adachi E, Sakai K, Nishiuchi T, Imamura R, Sato H, Matsumoto K. Cell‐autonomous changes in Met receptor expression regulate the growth and metastatic characteristics in malignant melanoma. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 70779–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Straussman R, Morikawa T, Shee K et al Tumour micro‐environment elicits innate resistance to RAF inhibitors through HGF secretion. Nature 2012; 487: 500–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Weidner KM, Di Cesare S, Sachs M, Brinkmann V, Behrens J, Birchmeier W. Interaction between Gab1 and the c‐Met receptor tyrosine kinase is responsible for epithelial morphogenesis. Nature 1996; 384: 173–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Sachs M, Brohmann H, Zechner D et al Essential role of Gab1 for signaling by the c‐Met receptor in vivo . J Cell Biol 2000; 150: 1375–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Kobayashi S, Boggon TJ, Dayaram T et al EGFR mutation and resistance of non‐small‐cell lung cancer to gefitinib. New Engl J Med 2005; 352: 786–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Yano S, Takeuchi S, Nakagawa T, Yamada T. Ligand‐triggered resistance to molecular targeted drugs in lung cancer: roles of hepatocyte growth factor and epidermal growth factor receptor ligands. Cancer Sci 2012; 103: 1189–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Soda M, Choi YL, Enomoto M et al Identification of the transforming EML4‐ALK fusion gene in non‐small‐cell lung cancer. Nature 2007; 448: 561–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Sakamoto H, Tsukaguchi T, Hiroshima S et al CH5424802, a selective ALK inhibitor capable of blocking the resistant gatekeeper mutant. Cancer Cell 2011; 19: 679–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Isozaki H, Ichihara E, Takigawa N et al Non‐small cell lung cancer cells acquire resistance to the ALK inhibitor alectinib by activating alternative receptor tyrosine kinases. Cancer Res 2016; 76: 1506–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Schmidt L, Duh FM, Chen F et al Germline and somatic mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the MET proto‐oncogene in papillary renal carcinomas. Nat Genet 1997; 16: 68–73. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Petrini I. Biology of MET: a double life between normal tissue repair and tumor progression. Annal Transl Med 2015; 3: 82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Kong‐Beltran M, Seshagiri S, Zha J et al Somatic mutations lead to an oncogenic deletion of met in lung cancer. Cancer Res 2006; 66: 283–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Navis AC, van Lith SA, van Duijnhoven SM et al Identification of a novel MET mutation in high‐grade glioma resulting in an auto‐active intracellular protein. Acta Neuropathol 2015; 130: 131–44. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Matsumoto K, Nakamura T. Hepatocyte growth factor: renotropic role and potential therapeutics for renal diseases. Kidney Int 2001; 59: 2023–38. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Srivastava AK, Hollingshead MG, Weiner J et al Pharmacodynamic response of the MET/HGF receptor to small‐molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors examined with validated, fit‐for‐clinic immunoassays. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 3683–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Athauda G, Giubellino A, Coleman JA et al c‐Met ectodomain shedding rate correlates with malignant potential. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12: 4154–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Kaye DR, Pinto PA, Cecchi F et al Tumor and plasma Met levels in non‐metastatic prostate cancer. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: e0157130. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Noguchi E, Saito N, Kobayashi M, Kameoka S. Clinical significance of hepatocyte growth factor/c‐Met expression in the assessment of gastric cancer progression. Mol Med Rep 2015; 11: 3423–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Takahashi N, Furuta K, Taniguchi H et al Serum level of hepatocyte growth factor is a novel marker of predicting the outcome and resistance to the treatment with trastuzumab in HER2‐positive patients with metastatic gastric cancer. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 4925–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Yang JJ, Yang JH, Kim J et al Soluble c‐Met protein as a susceptible biomarker for gastric cancer risk: a nested case‐control study within the Korean Multicenter Cancer Cohort. Int J Cancer 2013; 132: 2148–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Cañadas ITA, González I, Villanueva X et al High circulating hepatocyte growth factor levels associate with epithelial to mesenchymal transition and poor outcome in small cell lung cancer patients. Oncotarget 2014; 5: 5246–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Takigawa N, Segawa Y, Maeda Y, Takata I, Fujimoto N. Serum hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor levels in small cell lung cancer patients. Lung Cancer 1997; 17: 211–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Arriola E, Canadas I, Arumi‐Uria M et al MET phosphorylation predicts poor outcome in small cell lung carcinoma and its inhibition blocks HGF‐induced effects in MET mutant cell lines. Br J Cancer 2011; 105: 814–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Umeguchi H, Sueoka‐Aragane N, Kobayashi N et al Usefulness of plasma HGF level for monitoring acquired resistance to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors in non‐small cell lung cancer. Oncol Rep 2015; 33: 391–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Tanaka H, Kimura T, Kudoh S et al Reaction of plasma hepatocyte growth factor levels in non‐small cell lung cancer patients treated with EGFR‐TKIs. Int J Cancer 2011; 129: 1410–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Han JY, Kim JY, Lee SH, Yoo NJ, Choi BG. Association between plasma hepatocyte growth factor and gefitinib resistance in patients with advanced non‐small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2011; 74: 293–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Lv H, Shan B, Tian Z, Li Y, Zhang Y, Wen S. Soluble c‐Met is a reliable and sensitive marker to detect c‐Met expression level in lung cancer. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015: 626578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Gao HF, Li AN, Yang JJ et al Soluble c‐Met levels correlated with tissue c‐Met protein expression in patients with advanced non‐small‐cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 2016; 7: 39535–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Kim H, Youk J, Yang Y et al Prognostic implication of serum hepatocyte growth factor in stage II/III breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2015; 142: 707–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Yang H, Zhang C, Cui S. Expression of hepatocyte growth factor in breast cancer and its effect on prognosis and sensitivity to chemotherapy. Mol Med Rep 2015; 11: 1037–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Wang F, Li S, Zhao Y, et al Predictive role of the overexpression for CXCR4, C‐Met, and VEGF‐C among breast cancer patients: a meta‐analysis. Breast 2016; 28: 45–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Hochgrafe F, Zhang L, O'Toole SA et al Tyrosine phosphorylation profiling reveals the signaling network characteristics of Basal breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 2010; 70: 9391–401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Raghav KP, Wang W, Liu S et al cMET and phospho‐cMET protein levels in breast cancers and survival outcomes. Clin Cancer Res 2012; 18: 2269–77. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Gupta A, Karakiewicz PI, Roehrborn CG, Lotan Y, Zlotta AR, Shariat SF. Predictive value of plasma hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor levels in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14: 7385–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Russo AL, Jedlicka K, Wernick M et al Urine analysis and protein networking identify met as a marker of metastatic prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2009; 15: 4292–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Tanimoto S, Fukumori T, El‐Moula G et al Prognostic significance of serum hepatocyte growth factor in clear cell renal cell carcinoma: comparison with serum vascular endothelial growth factor. J Med Invest 2008; 55: 106–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Tran HT, Liu Y, Zurita AJ et al Prognostic or predictive plasma cytokines and angiogenic factors for patients treated with pazopanib for metastatic renal‐cell cancer: a retrospective analysis of phase 2 and phase 3 trials. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13: 827–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Schoffski P, Garcia JA, Stadler WM et al A phase II study of the efficacy and safety of AMG 102 in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 2011; 108: 679–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Hugel R, Muendlein A, Volbeding L et al Serum levels of hepatocyte growth factor as a potential tumor marker in patients with malignant melanoma. Melanoma Res 2016; 26: 354–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Barisione G, Fabbi M, Gino A et al Potential role of soluble c‐Met as a new candidate biomarker of metastatic uveal melanoma. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015; 133: 1013–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Rampa C, Tian E, Vatsveen TK et al Identification of the source of elevated hepatocyte growth factor levels in multiple myeloma patients. Biomark Res 2014; 2: 8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Minarik J, Pika T, Bacovsky J, Petrova P, Langova K, Scudla V. Prognostic value of hepatocyte growth factor, syndecan‐1, and osteopontin in multiple myeloma and monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance. ScientificWorldJournal 2012; 2012: 356128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Wader KF, Fagerli UM, Holt RU, Borset M, Sundan A, Waage A. Soluble c‐Met in serum of patients with multiple myeloma: correlation with clinical parameters. Eur J Haematol 2011; 87: 394–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Toiyama Y, Miki C, Inoue Y, Okugawa Y, Tanaka K, Kusunoki M. Serum hepatocyte growth factor as a prognostic marker for stage II or III colorectal cancer patients. Int J Cancer 2009; 125: 1657–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Takahashi N, Yamada Y, Furuta K et al Serum levels of hepatocyte growth factor and epiregulin are associated with the prognosis on anti‐EGFR antibody treatment in KRAS wild‐type metastatic colorectal cancer. Br J Cancer 2014; 110: 2716–27. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Chau GY, Lui WY, Chi CW et al Significance of serum hepatocyte growth factor levels in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing hepatic resection. Eur J Surg Oncol 2008; 34: 333–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Junbo H, Li Q, Zaide W, Yunde H. Increased level of serum hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor in liver cancer is associated with tumor metastasis. In Vivo 1999; 13: 177–80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Yamagami H, Moriyama M, Matsumura H et al Serum concentrations of human hepatocyte growth factor is a useful indicator for predicting the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinomas in C‐viral chronic liver diseases. Cancer 2002; 95: 824–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Zhu AX, Kang YK, Rosmorduc O et al Biomarker analyses of clinical outcomes in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib with or without erlotinib in the SEARCH trial. Clin Cancer Res 2016; 22: 4870–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Rimassa L, Abbadessa G, Personeni N et al Tumor and circulating biomarkers in patients with second‐line hepatocellular carcinoma from the randomized phase II study with tivantinib. Oncotarget 2016; 7: 72622–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Aune G, Lian AM, Tingulstad S et al Increased circulating hepatocyte growth factor (HGF): a marker of epithelial ovarian cancer and an indicator of poor prognosis. Gynecol Oncol 2011; 121: 402–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. McNeil BK, Sorbellini M, Grubb RL et al Preliminary evaluation of urinary soluble Met as a biomarker for urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. J Transl Med 2014; 12: 199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Liang QL, Mo ZY, Wang P, Li X, Liu ZX, Zhou ZM. The clinical value of serum hepatocyte growth factor levels in patients undergoing primary radiotherapy for glioma: effect on progression‐free survival. Med Oncol 2014; 31: 122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Schrock AB, Frampton GM, Suh J et al Characterization of 298 patients with lung cancer harboring MET exon 14 skipping alterations. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11: 1493–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Liu SY, Gou LY, Li AN et al The unique characteristics of MET exon 14 mutation in chinese patients with NSCLC. J Thorac Oncol 2016; 11: 1503–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Cancer Science are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES