Onartuzumab (DB11746): A Comprehensive Review of a Novel Monovalent MET Inhibitor from Rational Design to Clinical Discontinuation

Introduction

The signaling axis defined by the hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and its cognate receptor, the mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) tyrosine kinase, has long been recognized as a compelling therapeutic target in oncology.[1] Aberrant activation of the HGF/MET pathway—driven by ligand overexpression, receptor overexpression, gene amplification, or activating mutations—is implicated in the proliferation, survival, invasion, and metastasis of a diverse array of human malignancies.[4] Despite this strong biological rationale, the pathway has proven to be a remarkably challenging target for therapeutic intervention. Within this challenging landscape, the investigational agent Onartuzumab (DrugBank ID: DB11746) stands as a seminal case study in the narrative of modern drug development.

This report will provide an exhaustive analysis of Onartuzumab, framing its trajectory not as a simple drug failure, but as a paradigm of exquisite molecular engineering that was ultimately defeated by the profound complexities of tumor biology, the critical limitations of its companion diagnostic biomarker, and the inherent strategic risks of clinical trial design. The central thesis of this review is that Onartuzumab represents a landmark in the evolution of precision oncology. Its development showcased a brilliant solution to the specific biochemical problem of antibody-induced receptor agonism, yet its definitive clinical failure marked a crucial turning point for the field. The experience with Onartuzumab forced a fundamental re-evaluation of biomarker strategy, accelerating the shift away from targeting broadly "overexpressed" proteins toward the more precise targeting of validated, functional "driver" alterations. The story of Onartuzumab, therefore, is a microcosm of this evolution. Its development initially followed the successful model of targeting protein overexpression, a strategy exemplified by trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer, by selecting patients based on MET-positive status determined via immunohistochemistry (IHC).[7] However, the failure of the pivotal METLung trial, despite this patient selection strategy, delivered a costly but invaluable lesson: mere protein abundance does not equate to "oncogene addiction".[9] This realization directly informed the development strategies for all subsequent MET inhibitors, which have found success by targeting specific, causative genetic alterations like

MET exon 14 skipping mutations.[11] This report will trace the complete lifecycle of Onartuzumab—from its innovative conception at the bench to its definitive discontinuation following Phase III trials—to distill the enduring scientific and strategic lessons that continue to shape the development of targeted cancer therapies today.[9]

Section 1: Molecular Profile and Preclinical Pharmacology of Onartuzumab

The foundation of Onartuzumab's clinical program was built upon a unique molecular architecture and a compelling body of preclinical evidence. This section details the drug's fundamental properties, its innovative structural design, its precise mechanism of action, and the preclinical pharmacokinetic and efficacy data that justified its advancement into human trials.

1.1 Identification and Physicochemical Properties

Onartuzumab is a biotechnology-derived therapeutic agent classified as a humanized monoclonal antibody.[15] Throughout its development, it was identified by a variety of synonyms and internal code names, including MetMAb, anti-c-Met monoclonal antibody, OA-5D5, PRO-143966, RG-3638, and RO5490258.[2] Its unique chemical identity is registered under CAS Number 1133766-06-9.[16] As a large protein therapeutic, its molecular weight has been reported with some variability across different sources, ranging from approximately 99 kDa to 147 kDa, likely reflecting different analytical methods or the theoretical weight of glycosylated versus non-glycosylated forms.[18] The core, aglycosylated construct produced for clinical use has a molecular weight of approximately 99 kDa.[21]

Property	Description
Generic Name	Onartuzumab
DrugBank ID	DB11746
Type	Biotech, Monoclonal Antibody
CAS Number	1133766-06-9
Synonyms/Code Names	MetMAb, PRO-143966, RG-3638, RO5490258, OA-5D5
Structure	Humanized, Monovalent (One-Armed) IgG1 Fab-Fc Fusion
Source	Escherichia coli (aglycosylated)
Molecular Weight	~99 kDa (aglycosylated construct)
Target	Hepatocyte growth factor receptor (HGFR/c-Met)

1.2 A Novel Structural Design: The Monovalent Antibody

The molecular engineering of Onartuzumab is its most defining feature and represents an elegant solution to a significant biological challenge. Early attempts to target the MET receptor with conventional bivalent (two-armed) antibodies proved problematic. Because MET signaling is initiated by ligand-induced dimerization, a bivalent antibody capable of binding to two separate MET receptors simultaneously could mimic the action of the natural ligand HGF, leading to receptor crosslinking, activation, and unwanted agonistic signaling—an effect that would promote, rather than inhibit, tumor growth.[4]

To circumvent this, Genentech scientists designed Onartuzumab as a monovalent, or "one-armed," antibody.[21] This unique structure consists of a single antigen-binding fragment (Fab) that recognizes MET, fused to a complete constant domain fragment (Fc).[28] This asymmetric assembly was made possible through the use of proprietary "knob-into-hole" technology. This protein engineering strategy involves creating a steric "knob" in one polypeptide chain by replacing a small amino acid with a larger one, and a corresponding "hole" in the other chain by replacing large residues with smaller ones. This ensures the preferential heterodimerization of the Fab-containing chain with the Fc-only chain, enabling the efficient production of the desired monovalent molecule in an

Escherichia coli expression system.[24]

Critically, the retention of a full Fc domain was a key design choice. The Fc region allows the antibody to bind to the neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn), a mechanism that protects it from catabolism and confers the long circulatory half-life characteristic of therapeutic immunoglobulins.[30] Furthermore, because Onartuzumab is produced in a bacterial system, it is aglycosylated. This lack of glycosylation prevents it from binding to Fcγ receptors or the complement component C1q, thereby minimizing antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity (ADCC) and other effector functions that were not part of its intended mechanism.[30]

1.3 Mechanism of Action: Antagonism of the HGF/MET Axis

Onartuzumab functions as a pure antagonist of the HGF/MET signaling pathway.[24] It exerts its effect by binding with high affinity to the extracellular domain of the MET receptor, specifically to a region composed of the Semaphorin (Sema) and Plexin, Semaphorin, Integrin (PSI) domains.[24]

High-resolution crystal structure analysis of the ternary complex of Onartuzumab Fab, the MET extracellular domain, and the HGF β-chain revealed the precise molecular basis of its inhibitory action.[25] Onartuzumab does not compete with the HGF β-chain for binding. Instead, it acts as a direct competitive inhibitor by sterically hindering the binding of the HGF α-chain to MET.[2] This specific blockade of the HGF α-chain interaction is the key to its function, as this event is required for high-affinity ligand binding and subsequent receptor activation. The inhibitory concentration (

IC50​) for blocking HGF binding to human c-Met has been reported to be 1.8 nM, indicating a highly potent interaction.[18]

By preventing HGF from binding and, due to its monovalent nature, avoiding receptor dimerization, Onartuzumab potently inhibits MET autophosphorylation. This, in turn, blocks the activation of critical downstream signaling cascades, including the PI3K/AKT and Ras/MAPK pathways.[2] The ultimate consequence of this signaling blockade is the inhibition of HGF-driven cellular processes essential for tumorigenesis, such as proliferation, survival, migration, and invasion.[2] The success of this design is a critical point; the subsequent clinical failure of Onartuzumab was not a failure of the molecule to engage its target as intended. The drug performed its biochemical function precisely as designed. The failure lay in the overarching clinical hypothesis that this specific biochemical intervention, when applied to a patient population selected by MET protein expression, would translate into a meaningful therapeutic benefit.

1.4 Preclinical Pharmacokinetics and Efficacy

A robust preclinical data package supported the transition of Onartuzumab into clinical trials. Pharmacokinetic (PK) studies in mice and cynomolgus monkeys revealed that Onartuzumab exhibited characteristics typical of antibody therapeutics, although its clearance was approximately two-fold faster than that of conventional bivalent, glycosylated antibodies.[27] Despite this slightly faster clearance, its half-life was sufficient to support dosing regimens of every one to three weeks.[27]

In vivo efficacy was demonstrated in multiple human tumor xenograft models that were dependent on HGF/MET signaling, including models of glioblastoma and pancreatic cancer.[2] In these models, Onartuzumab administration resulted in dose-dependent inhibition of tumor growth, which correlated with the inhibition of MET phosphorylation within the tumors.[2]

Crucially, these nonclinical studies were leveraged to build pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models to guide clinical development. A key output of this modeling was the estimation of a minimum tumoristatic concentration (TSC)—the serum drug concentration required to halt tumor growth—of 15 µg/mL in a pancreatic xenograft model.[33] This concentration became the therapeutic target for human dosing, with simulations projecting that intravenous doses of 10 to 30 mg/kg every 3 weeks would achieve and maintain this target trough concentration in the vast majority of patients.[27] This target-driven approach informed the dosing schedules used throughout the subsequent clinical program.

Section 2: The Clinical Development Program of Onartuzumab

Leveraging its innovative design and promising preclinical data, Onartuzumab was advanced into a broad and ambitious clinical development program. The therapeutic rationale was rooted in the well-documented role of aberrant HGF/MET signaling across a wide spectrum of human cancers.[1] Consequently, Onartuzumab was investigated in numerous solid tumor types, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), gastric cancer, glioblastoma, and colorectal cancer, typically in combination with standard-of-care agents.[15] This section provides a comprehensive overview of this extensive program, charting its course from an initial, promising signal in a subgroup of NSCLC patients to a consistent pattern of negative results that ultimately led to its discontinuation.

2.1 Therapeutic Rationale and Investigational Scope

The overarching strategy for Onartuzumab's clinical development was to target tumors where MET overexpression was believed to be a key driver of malignancy or a mechanism of resistance to other therapies.[4] This led to the initiation of multiple Phase II and Phase III trials across several indications, as summarized in the table below.

Trial ID (NCT)	Phase	Indication	Combination Agent(s)	Primary Endpoint	Outcome
Spigel et al. 2013	II	NSCLC (recurrent)	Erlotinib	PFS	Negative in ITT; Positive signal in MET-positive subgroup
NCT01456325 (METLung)	III	NSCLC (2nd/3rd line, MET-positive)	Erlotinib	Overall Survival (OS)	Negative; Trial stopped for futility
NCT01662869 (METGastric)	III	Gastric Cancer (1st line, HER2-neg, MET-pos)	mFOLFOX6	OS	Negative; Trial stopped early
GO27819	II	Recurrent Glioblastoma	Bevacizumab	Progression-Free Survival (PFS)	Negative
NCT01418222 (GO27827)	II	Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (1st line)	FOLFOX + Bevacizumab	PFS	Negative

2.2 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC): The Pivotal Indication

NSCLC became the lead indication for Onartuzumab, driven by strong preclinical rationale and a pivotal, albeit ultimately misleading, result from a Phase II study.

2.2.1 The Randomized Phase II Trial: A Glimmer of Hope

A randomized, placebo-controlled Phase II study (reported by Spigel et al. in 2013) evaluated the combination of onartuzumab with the EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) erlotinib in patients with recurrent NSCLC.[7] The trial failed to meet its primary endpoint in the overall intent-to-treat (ITT) population of 137 patients, showing no improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) for the combination (Hazard Ratio 1.09; P=0.69).[7]

However, a pre-planned subgroup analysis of patients whose tumors were deemed "MET-positive" by IHC (n=66) yielded a dramatically different and highly encouraging result. In this subgroup, the addition of onartuzumab to erlotinib was associated with a significant improvement in both PFS (median 2.9 vs. 1.5 months; HR 0.53; P=0.04) and, most impressively, overall survival (OS) (median 12.6 vs. 3.8 months; HR 0.37; P=0.002).[7] This striking survival benefit in the MET-positive cohort became the cornerstone of the entire Onartuzumab program, providing the sole justification for advancing into a large, resource-intensive Phase III trial.[10] Conversely, the analysis also revealed a concerning trend: in the MET-negative subgroup (n=62), patients treated with onartuzumab appeared to have worse outcomes, with a PFS HR of 1.82 (P=0.05), suggesting potential harm in this population.[7]

2.2.2 Other NSCLC Trials

Building on the Phase II signal, several other studies in NSCLC were initiated. A Phase II trial (NCT01519804) was designed to evaluate onartuzumab in combination with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus cisplatin or carboplatin) specifically in patients with squamous NSCLC.[38] Another Phase III study (NCT01887886) was planned to test the onartuzumab-erlotinib combination as a first-line treatment for the specific population of patients with MET-positive, EGFR-activating mutation-positive NSCLC.[40] A Phase I/II trial known as BATTLE-XRT (NCT02044601), which intended to combine onartuzumab with external beam radiation, was ultimately withdrawn before it could enroll patients.[41] These parallel efforts were largely contingent on the success of the pivotal METLung trial and were consequently impacted by its failure.

2.3 Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction (GEC) Cancer

The METGastric study (NCT01662869) was a large Phase III trial that randomized 562 patients with previously untreated, HER2-negative, MET-positive metastatic GEC to receive standard first-line chemotherapy (mFOLFOX6) with either onartuzumab or placebo.[42] The trial was designed to enroll approximately 800 patients but was stopped prematurely by the sponsor after negative results emerged from a related Phase II study (YO28252, NCT01590719) and an internal review indicated a lack of efficacy.[44]

The final results of METGastric were unequivocally negative. The addition of onartuzumab to chemotherapy failed to improve any of the primary or secondary efficacy endpoints. In the ITT population, the median OS was 11.0 months in the onartuzumab arm versus 11.3 months in the placebo arm (HR 0.82; P=0.24).[42] Similarly, there was no benefit in the pre-specified MET 2+/3+ IHC subgroup (median OS 11.0 vs. 9.7 months; HR 0.64; P=0.062) or for PFS and overall response rate (ORR) in either population.[42]

2.4 Glioblastoma (GBM)

Onartuzumab was investigated in recurrent glioblastoma, a disease where MET signaling has been implicated in pathogenesis and resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy. The Phase II GO27819 trial (NCT01632228) was a randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluating onartuzumab in combination with the standard-of-care agent bevacizumab in patients with recurrent, bevacizumab-naïve GBM.[48]

The study failed to demonstrate any benefit for the addition of onartuzumab. The combination did not meet its primary endpoint of improving PFS, with a median PFS of 3.9 months for the onartuzumab arm versus 2.9 months for the placebo arm (HR 1.06; P=0.7444).[48] More concerning was the trend toward worse overall survival in the experimental arm, with a median OS of 8.8 months for onartuzumab plus bevacizumab compared to 12.6 months for placebo plus bevacizumab (HR 1.45; P=0.1389).[48] Although exploratory biomarker analyses suggested a potential benefit in small, un-pre-specified subgroups of patients with high HGF expression or unmethylated

MGMT promoters, these findings were hypothesis-generating at best within the context of a failed trial.[48]

2.5 Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC)

In metastatic colorectal cancer, the Phase II GO27827 trial (NCT01418222) evaluated the addition of onartuzumab to the standard first-line regimen of FOLFOX plus bevacizumab.[51] The trial randomized 194 patients and, similar to the studies in other indications, was stopped early after an interim analysis recommended halting the onartuzumab arm due to a lack of efficacy.[53]

The final analysis confirmed the lack of benefit. Onartuzumab did not improve PFS in the overall ITT population (HR 0.75) or, critically, in the pre-specified MET IHC-positive population (n=79; median PFS 10.2 vs. 10.7 months; HR 1.03; P=0.93).[53] In a finding that directly contradicted the entire program's guiding hypothesis, a post-hoc analysis revealed a statistically significant trend towards PFS benefit in the MET IHC-negative population (n=108; median PFS 11.7 vs. 10.2 months; HR 0.60; P=0.03).[53] This paradoxical result, while most likely a statistical artifact arising from post-hoc analysis, served as a powerful indictment of the MET IHC biomarker's validity, demonstrating that it had no predictive power and was, in this context, actively misleading.

The consistent failure of onartuzumab across these diverse tumor types and in combination with different therapeutic backbones—a TKI in NSCLC, platinum-based chemotherapy in GEC, and an anti-VEGF agent in GBM and mCRC—points strongly toward a fundamental flaw in the core therapeutic hypothesis rather than a tumor- or context-specific issue. The systematic failure to show benefit in the MET-positive populations for which the drug was intended suggests that the initial positive signal from the Phase II NSCLC trial was an anomaly, likely driven by chance and confounding factors in a small subgroup, and that the MET IHC biomarker was incapable of enriching for a responsive patient population in any clinical setting.

Section 3: The METLung Trial: A Pivotal Failure and Its Ramifications

The METLung study was the pivotal, definitive trial for Onartuzumab. Designed to confirm the promising survival signal observed in the Phase II MET-positive subgroup, its failure was not only the primary reason for the termination of the entire development program but also a landmark event that provided profound lessons for the field of targeted oncology. This section provides a granular analysis of the trial's design, its unequivocal results, and the immediate consequences of its failure.

3.1 Trial Design and Endpoints

METLung (OAM4971g, NCT01456325) was a large-scale, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III study.[37] Its design was a direct translation of the successful arm of the preceding Phase II trial.

The study enrolled 499 patients with locally advanced or metastatic (Stage IIIB/IV) non-squamous NSCLC who had experienced disease progression following at least one line of platinum-based chemotherapy.[37] The critical inclusion criterion, forming the basis of the trial's hypothesis, was that all patients had to have MET-positive tumors. This was centrally determined using an investigational IHC assay (Ventana CONFIRM anti-total MET), with positivity defined as ≥50% of tumor cells exhibiting a staining intensity of 2+ or 3+.[8]

Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of two treatment arms [37]:

1. Experimental Arm: Onartuzumab 15 mg/kg administered intravenously every 3 weeks, plus oral erlotinib 150 mg daily.
2. Control Arm: A matching intravenous placebo every 3 weeks, plus oral erlotinib 150 mg daily.

To ensure balance between the arms, patients were stratified based on several key prognostic and predictive factors: MET expression level (IHC 2+ vs. 3+), number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs. 2), tumor histology (squamous vs. non-squamous), and EGFR-activating mutation status (yes vs. no).[8]

The primary endpoint of the study was Overall Survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat population. Key secondary endpoints included Progression-Free Survival (PFS), Overall Response Rate (ORR), safety, and exploratory biomarker analyses.[36]

3.2 Definitive Efficacy and Safety Outcomes

The METLung trial was stopped prematurely in early 2014. The decision was based on a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) following a pre-specified interim analysis. The IDMC concluded that the study had crossed its futility boundary, showing not only a lack of clinically meaningful efficacy but also a concerning trend toward a detrimental effect for onartuzumab.[9]

The final results confirmed the IDMC's assessment in dramatic fashion, completely refuting the hypothesis generated by the Phase II trial.

• Primary Endpoint (Overall Survival): The addition of onartuzumab to erlotinib did not improve OS. On the contrary, patients in the onartuzumab arm had a shorter median OS of 6.8 months compared to 9.1 months for patients in the placebo arm. This represented a 27% increased risk of death in the experimental arm, a result that approached statistical significance for harm (HR 1.27; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.65; P=0.067).[10]
• Secondary Endpoints: No benefit was observed for any of the secondary efficacy endpoints. Median PFS was nearly identical between the two arms, at 2.7 months for the onartuzumab group and 2.6 months for the placebo group (HR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.20; P=0.92).[58] Similarly, the ORR was slightly lower in the onartuzumab arm (8.4%) compared to the placebo arm (9.6%).[58]
• Subgroup Analyses: Exploratory analyses failed to identify any subgroup of patients that benefited from onartuzumab. Of particular note, the small subgroup of patients with EGFR-activating mutations (n=57) exhibited a dramatic and alarming trend toward shorter OS when treated with onartuzumab (HR 4.68; 95% CI, 0.97 to 22.63).[10] This powerful negative signal suggested a potential detrimental biological interaction in this specific context.

The safety profile was generally consistent with previous studies, with higher rates of peripheral edema and hypoalbuminemia in the onartuzumab arm.[64] Overall rates of Grade 3-5 adverse events were similar between the arms (56.0% for onartuzumab vs. 51.2% for placebo).[58]

Endpoint	Onartuzumab + Erlotinib Arm	Placebo + Erlotinib Arm	Hazard Ratio (95% CI)	P-value
Overall Survival (OS)	Median 6.8 months	Median 9.1 months	1.27 (0.98 - 1.65)	0.067
Progression-Free Survival (PFS)	Median 2.7 months	Median 2.6 months	0.99 (0.81 - 1.20)	0.92
Overall Response Rate (ORR)	8.4%	9.6%	N/A	N/A

The results of METLung were not merely neutral; they were directionally negative for the primary endpoint of survival. This finding did more than just demonstrate a lack of efficacy; it raised a significant safety concern that the addition of onartuzumab to erlotinib could be actively harmful to patients selected by the MET IHC biomarker. This possibility, especially when coupled with the strong negative signal in the EGFR-mutant subgroup, rendered any further development of this strategy untenable and provided a clear and unambiguous basis for the program's termination.

3.3 Discontinuation of the Onartuzumab Program

On March 3, 2014, Genentech and Roche issued a formal press release announcing the decision to halt the METLung study based on the IDMC's recommendation.[9] In the statement, Dr. Sandra Horning, Chief Medical Officer and Head of Global Product Development, acknowledged the disappointing results, stating, "new options are needed for people with lung cancer".[13] The company confirmed that it was evaluating the implications of the METLung results on the entire ongoing onartuzumab clinical program.[13] Given the definitive nature of the METLung failure in the lead indication and the consistent lack of efficacy in all other parallel studies, this evaluation ultimately led to the complete discontinuation of Onartuzumab's development across all indications.

Section 4: A Critical Post-Mortem: Deconstructing the Failure of Onartuzumab

The failure of the Onartuzumab clinical program, culminating in the definitive negative result of the METLung trial, prompted significant reflection within the oncology community. A critical post-mortem analysis reveals that the program's demise was not due to a failure of drug design—Onartuzumab performed its intended biochemical function flawlessly—but rather to a cascade of flawed strategic and scientific assumptions. The deconstruction of this failure centers on three key areas: a fundamentally flawed biomarker strategy, a questionable biological rationale in the chosen patient population, and the strategic peril of advancing to Phase III based on a fragile Phase II subgroup signal.

4.1 The Biomarker Conundrum: MET IHC as a Flawed Predictor

The selection of MET protein expression, as measured by IHC, as the sole patient selection biomarker was the program's fatal flaw.[9] This choice was based on a paradigm that equated protein overexpression with therapeutic vulnerability, a concept that proved to be a gross oversimplification in the context of MET signaling.

The central issue is the distinction between protein expression and oncogene addiction. While MET protein is frequently overexpressed in NSCLC and other cancers, this is often a secondary phenomenon or a downstream consequence of other oncogenic drivers, such as transcriptional upregulation induced by hypoxia or other signaling pathways.[10] In such cases, the tumor is not fundamentally dependent on—or "addicted" to—the MET pathway for its survival. True oncogene addiction to MET is a much rarer event, typically driven by specific, potent genetic alterations such as high-level

MET gene amplification (detectable by fluorescence in situ hybridization, or FISH) or activating mutations like MET exon 14 skipping events.[10] The IHC assay used in the Onartuzumab trials was incapable of distinguishing between these biologically distinct states; it simply measured the quantity of protein, regardless of its functional importance to the cancer cell.

The METLung trial data unequivocally confirmed this flaw. There was no difference in outcomes between patients with higher (3+) versus lower (2+) levels of MET IHC staining, and exploratory analyses using MET FISH to assess gene copy number also failed to identify a responsive subgroup.[10] Furthermore, technical issues may have compounded the biological problem. The use of archival tumor tissue from multiple global sites introduced variability in sample age and fixation procedures, which can significantly impact IHC staining quality.[69] The fact that the diagnostic antibody (SP44) recognized a different epitope on the MET protein than Onartuzumab itself created another layer of potential disconnect between the biomarker measurement and the drug's target engagement.[69] The failure of Onartuzumab thus forced a critical redefinition of what constitutes a valid predictive biomarker—it must identify not merely a correlative molecular feature, but the specific, causal lesion that renders the tumor vulnerable to the therapeutic agent.

4.2 Re-evaluating the Biological Rationale

The second point of failure lies in the core biological hypothesis of the METLung trial: that dual inhibition of the MET and EGFR pathways would be an effective strategy in a broad population of MET-IHC-positive NSCLC patients. While strong preclinical data support the existence of crosstalk between these two pathways, particularly as a mechanism of acquired resistance to EGFR TKIs in EGFR-mutant tumors, the METLung results demonstrated that this concept does not apply broadly.[4]

For the majority of tumors enrolled in the trial (which were predominantly EGFR wild-type), MET signaling was clearly not the critical escape pathway from EGFR inhibition by erlotinib. The lack of any PFS benefit suggests that other, more dominant resistance mechanisms were at play, or that the baseline activity of erlotinib in this unselected population was already minimal, leaving little for Onartuzumab to enhance.[60] Genentech's own post-mortem analysis acknowledged this, concluding that the data suggest these cancers were not "addicted" to the MET pathway in the same way they are to other oncogenic drivers.[9] The detrimental trend observed in the

EGFR-mutant subgroup further complicates the rationale, suggesting that in certain contexts, MET inhibition might even interfere with EGFR TKI efficacy or promote alternative, more aggressive resistance pathways.

4.3 From Phase II Promise to Phase III Peril: A Cautionary Tale

The strategic decision to launch a 499-patient, global Phase III trial based almost entirely on a subgroup analysis from a Phase II study stands as a stark cautionary tale in clinical development.[10] The "promising" signal in the MET-positive subgroup of the Phase II trial was derived from a very small number of patients (66 total, approximately 33 per arm).[7] Such analyses are statistically fragile and highly susceptible to the play of chance and imbalances in unmeasured or unstratified prognostic factors.

In retrospect, a critical imbalance appears to have been the distribution of EGFR-mutant patients in the Phase II MET-positive subgroup. A higher percentage of EGFR-mutant patients were in the onartuzumab arm (20%) compared to the placebo arm (7%).[69] Since these patients are known to have a better prognosis, this imbalance alone could have contributed significantly to the observed survival benefit, confounding the true effect of the drug. The dramatic reversal of the OS hazard ratio from a highly favorable 0.37 in the Phase II subgroup to a detrimental 1.27 in the Phase III trial underscores the immense risk of over-interpreting subgroup findings and the absolute necessity of obtaining robust, statistically sound, and biologically plausible evidence before committing to resource-intensive pivotal studies.[36]

Section 5: Comprehensive Safety Profile and Drug Interactions

A thorough understanding of an investigational agent requires a complete characterization of its safety profile. Analysis of data aggregated from the extensive Onartuzumab clinical program, encompassing 773 treated patients across seven major studies, revealed a distinct and consistent pattern of adverse events, many of which are likely on-target, mechanism-based effects of potent MET pathway inhibition.[35]

5.1 Analysis of Adverse Events (AEs)

A meta-analysis of the Phase II and III trials identified several key adverse events that occurred at a significantly higher frequency in patients receiving Onartuzumab compared to those in control arms.[35] These events are considered to be expected toxicities associated with the drug.

The most characteristic and frequently reported AEs were:

• Peripheral Edema: This was the most common Onartuzumab-associated toxicity. The incidence of all-grade edema in onartuzumab arms ranged from 25.4% to as high as 65.7% (in the mCRC trial GO27827), compared to much lower rates in control arms (e.g., 12.9% in GO27827).[35] Most events were Grade 1-2 in severity, but Grade 3 edema was also observed, with frequencies up to 14.1%.[35]
• Hypoalbuminemia: Low serum albumin was another hallmark toxicity, observed at very high frequencies in onartuzumab-treated patients, ranging from 77.8% to 98.3% across studies.[35] This laboratory finding was consistently more frequent than in control arms.
• Venous Thromboembolic Events (VTE): Onartuzumab was associated with a notable increase in the risk of VTEs, including deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The highest reported frequencies of all-grade and Grade ≥3 VTEs in onartuzumab arms were 30.3% and 17.2%, respectively.[35]

Other adverse events reported more frequently with Onartuzumab included arterial thromboembolic events (ATE), gastrointestinal (GI) perforation (particularly when combined with the anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab), thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia.[35] While the overall rates of severe (Grade ≥3) AEs were often comparable to control arms in some studies, the incidence of specific severe events like VTE and peripheral edema was consistently elevated with Onartuzumab.[35]

Adverse Event (Grade ≥3)	Trial (Onartuzumab arm % vs. Control arm %)	Reference
Peripheral Edema	GO27827 (mCRC): 14.1% vs. 0%	35
	OAM4971g (NSCLC): 1.2% vs. 0%	35
Venous Thromboembolism (VTE)	GO27827 (mCRC): 17.2% (all grade 30.3%)	35
Hypoalbuminemia	GO27827 (mCRC): 98.3% (all grade)	35
GI Perforation	GO27827 (mCRC): 6.2% vs. 0%	35
Neutropenia	METGastric (GEC): 35.1% vs. 29.3%	44
Thrombocytopenia	METGastric (GEC): 4.3% vs. 1.1%	44

The distinct nature of these toxicities provides insight into the biological function of the MET pathway. HGF/MET signaling is not confined to cancer cells; it plays crucial physiological roles in maintaining endothelial barrier integrity, vascular homeostasis, and normal liver function, including albumin synthesis.[2] Therefore, the observed adverse events are not likely off-target effects but rather on-target, mechanism-based consequences of potently inhibiting this vital pathway in normal tissues. The disruption of endothelial junctions can lead to increased vascular permeability and fluid extravasation, manifesting as edema, while interference with hepatic MET signaling may impair albumin production, leading to hypoalbuminemia. This suggests that these AEs may represent a class effect of effective MET inhibitors, highlighting the fundamental challenge of targeting pathways that are critical for both malignant and normal cellular processes.

5.2 Known and Potential Drug-Drug Interactions

Formal drug-drug interaction studies for Onartuzumab were limited. Pharmacokinetic analyses conducted during early-phase clinical trials did not find a significant PK interaction when Onartuzumab was co-administered with the oral TKI erlotinib.[27]

However, pharmacodynamic interactions and general safety considerations are more extensive. Drug information databases list a theoretical increased risk of adverse effects when Onartuzumab is combined with a wide range of other monoclonal antibodies, such as aducanumab, alemtuzumab, and bevacizumab, likely due to overlapping toxicities or cumulative immunosuppressive effects.[15] A more specific and mechanistically plausible interaction is noted for estrogen-containing compounds. Agents like conjugated estrogens and diethylstilbestrol may increase the thrombogenic activities of Onartuzumab.[15] This is a particularly relevant warning given the clinically observed increase in VTEs in patients treated with Onartuzumab, suggesting a potential synergistic effect on coagulation pathways.

Section 6: Conclusion and Future Perspectives

Onartuzumab, a molecule born from innovative protein engineering and a strong preclinical rationale, ultimately failed to deliver on its clinical promise. Its comprehensive development program, spanning multiple tumor types and culminating in a definitive Phase III trial, provides a rich and instructive narrative. The legacy of Onartuzumab is not one of simple failure, but of critical lessons learned that have profoundly reshaped the principles of targeted therapy development, particularly in the context of the HGF/MET signaling axis.

6.1 The Legacy of Onartuzumab: Enduring Lessons for Targeted Therapy

The Onartuzumab story can be synthesized into a series of enduring lessons that remain highly relevant for the field of oncology drug development. It stands as a testament to the fact that a drug can be a triumph of rational design, flawlessly executing its intended biochemical function, and still fail clinically due to a flawed therapeutic hypothesis.

The three core lessons from the Onartuzumab program are:

1. The Primacy of the Driver Lesion: The most critical lesson is that targeted therapies are most effective when directed against tumors exhibiting true "oncogene addiction." This vulnerable state is best identified by a biomarker that detects the causal genetic alteration—such as a gene amplification or an activating mutation—rather than a downstream and often non-causal consequence like protein overexpression. The failure of MET IHC to enrich for a responsive population, and the subsequent success of drugs targeting specific MET mutations, has cemented this principle.
2. The Peril of Over-interpreting Subgroup Analyses: The decision to launch the multi-million dollar METLung trial based on a small, unstratified subgroup analysis from a Phase II study represents a classic strategic misstep. The dramatic reversal of the efficacy signal from Phase II to Phase III serves as a powerful, real-world cautionary tale against over-interpreting statistically fragile findings and underscores the need for robust biological and statistical confirmation before committing to pivotal trials.
3. Understanding On-Target, Off-Tumor Biology: The consistent safety profile of Onartuzumab, characterized by edema, hypoalbuminemia, and thromboembolic events, provided valuable insights into the physiological roles of the MET pathway. These on-target toxicities highlight the inherent challenge of inhibiting pathways that are vital for normal tissue homeostasis and can help predict class-wide adverse events for future agents targeting the same pathway.

6.2 The Future of MET Inhibition Post-Onartuzumab

The discontinuation of Onartuzumab did not signify the end of MET as a therapeutic target; rather, it clarified precisely how it should be targeted for clinical success.[9] The lessons learned from its failure directly paved the way for the successful development of the next generation of MET inhibitors.

The subsequent regulatory approvals of small-molecule TKIs such as capmatinib and tepotinib for the treatment of NSCLC harboring MET exon 14 skipping mutations are a direct validation of this refined approach.[11] The success of these agents is predicated on a strategy that is the antithesis of the one used for Onartuzumab: they are paired with highly specific, molecularly-defined diagnostics (e.g., next-generation sequencing) that identify a clear oncogenic driver mutation, not a non-specific protein expression level.

In conclusion, Onartuzumab holds a unique and important place in the history of cancer drug development. It is a critical, albeit negative, landmark—a case study of a brilliantly engineered tool applied to the wrong biological problem. The knowledge gained from its comprehensive and well-documented failure has provided the field with a clarity that has been instrumental in the successful development of subsequent therapies, ensuring that its legacy is one of scientific progress. The story of Onartuzumab is a powerful reminder that in the complex pursuit of new cancer medicines, even the most definitive failures can yield invaluable wisdom.

Works cited

1. Onartuzumab - Drug Targets, Indications, Patents - Patsnap Synapse, accessed September 15, 2025, https://synapse.patsnap.com/drug/ed81a3ad67ff4c13abbbb35955646de4
2. Onartuzumab. Anti-HGFR (c-Met) monoclonal antibody, Oncolytic., accessed September 15, 2025, https://access.portico.org/Portico/show?viewFile=pdf&auId=pjbf78x7b78
3. MET/HGF pathway activation as a paradigm of resistance to targeted therapies - Ko, accessed September 15, 2025, https://atm.amegroups.org/article/view/13121/html
4. Onartuzumab Overview - Creative Biolabs, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.creativebiolabs.net/onartuzumab-overview.htm
5. Onartuzumab - Altmeyers Encyclopedia - Department Internal medicine, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.altmeyers.org/en/internal-medicine/onartuzumab-142817
6. Anti-MET (Onartuzumab)-MC-MMAF ADC - Creative Biolabs, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.creative-biolabs.com/adc/onartuzumab-mc-mmaf-adc-1821.htm
7. Randomized Phase II Trial of Onartuzumab in Combination With Erlotinib in Patients With Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4878106/
8. A randomized, double-blind, phase III study of onartuzumab (MetMAb) plus erlotinib versus placebo plus erlotinib in patients with advanced, MET-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). - ASCO, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.asco.org/abstracts-presentations/ABSTRACT97664
9. Let's Talk About Met - Genentech, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.gene.com/stories/lets-talk-about-met
10. Negative results of METLung study: an opportunity to better understand the role of MET pathway in advanced NSCLC - PubMed Central, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4367676/
11. News - onartuzumab (RG3638) - LARVOL VERI, accessed September 15, 2025, https://veri.larvol.com/news/onartuzumab-rg3638/drug
12. Targeting the MET Pathway for Lung Cancer Treatments, Biomarkers - Targeted Oncology, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.targetedonc.com/view/targeting-the-met-pathway-for-lung-cancer-treatments-biomarkers
13. Onartuzumab Falters in Late-Stage NSCLC Trial - OncLive, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.onclive.com/view/onartuzumab-becomes-latest-late-stage-nsclc-agent-to-falter
14. Onartuzumab in lung cancer: the fall of Icarus? - PubMed, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25818471/
15. Onartuzumab: Uses, Interactions, Mechanism of Action | DrugBank ..., accessed September 15, 2025, https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB11746
16. ONARTUZUMAB - Inxight Drugs, accessed September 15, 2025, https://drugs.ncats.io/drug/MS1J9720WC
17. Onartuzumab (Anti-HGFR / c-Met) (1mg*25) from selleckchem | SmallMolecules.com, accessed September 15, 2025, https://smallmolecules.com/product/1133766-06-9-selleckchem-onartuzumab-anti-hgfr-c-met-1mg25/
18. Onartuzumab | c-Met/HGFR - TargetMol, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.targetmol.com/compound/onartuzumab
19. Definition of onartuzumab - NCI Drug Dictionary, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-drug/def/onartuzumab
20. Onartuzumab - Wikipedia, accessed September 15, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onartuzumab
21. Onartuzumab (Anti-HGFR / c-Met) - Selleck Chemicals, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.selleckchem.com/products/onartuzumab-anti-hgfr-c-met-a2468.html
22. Onartuzumab (MetMAb) | MET Inhibitor - MedchemExpress.com, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.medchemexpress.com/onartuzumab.html
23. Monoclonal Antibodies against the MET/HGF Receptor and Its Ligand: Multitask Tools with Applications from Basic Research to Therapy - PMC, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5344273/
24. Monovalent antibody design and mechanism of action of ... - PNAS, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1302725110
25. Genentech Uses ALS Crystallography for Therapeutic Antibody ..., accessed September 15, 2025, https://als.lbl.gov/genentech-uses-als-crystallography-for-therapeutic-antibody-research/
26. onartuzumab | Ligand page | IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.guidetopharmacology.org/GRAC/LigandDisplayForward?ligandId=8966
27. Population pharmacokinetic analysis from phase I and phase II studies of the humanized monovalent antibody, onartuzumab (MetMAb), in patients with advanced solid tumors - PubMed, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23922054/
28. Monovalent antibody design and mechanism of action of, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3740879/
29. Monovalent Antibody Design and Mechanism of Action of Onartuzumab, a MET Antagonist With Anti-Tumor Activity as a Therapeutic Agent - PubMed, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23882082/
30. Structural basis for antagonism of MET signaling by onartuzumab. (A)... - ResearchGate, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Structural-basis-for-antagonism-of-MET-signaling-by-onartuzumab-A-Schematic-of-MET-and_fig4_251570223
31. 4K3J: Crystal structure of Onartuzumab Fab in complex with MET and HGF-beta, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.rcsb.org/structure/4k3j
32. Nonclinical Evaluation of the Serum Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers HGF and Shed MET following Dosing with the Anti-MET Monovalent Monoclonal Antibody Onartuzumab - AACR Journals, accessed September 15, 2025, https://aacrjournals.org/mct/article/13/2/540/91794/Nonclinical-Evaluation-of-the-Serum
33. Onartuzumab (MetMAb): Using Nonclinical Pharmacokinetic and Concentration–Effect Data to Support Clinical Development - AACR Journals, accessed September 15, 2025, https://aacrjournals.org/clincancerres/article-abstract/19/18/5068/205206
34. Preclinical - Onartuzumab (MetMAb): Using Nonclinical Pharmacokinetic and Concentration–Effect Data to Support Clinical Development - AACR Journals, accessed September 15, 2025, https://aacrjournals.org/clincancerres/article-pdf/19/18/5068/2014409/5068.pdf
35. Safety of Onartuzumab in Patients with Solid Tumors: Experience to Date from the Onartuzumab Clinical Trial Program - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4596876/
36. METLung: a disappointing result in a challenging patient population - Zweig, accessed September 15, 2025, https://tcr.amegroups.org/article/view/13579/html
37. Treatment Rationale Study Design for the MetLung Trial: A Randomized, Double-Blind Phase III Study of Onartuzumab (MetMAb) in Combination With Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib Alone in Patients Who Have Received Standard Chemotherapy for Stage IIIB or IV Met-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer - PubMed, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23063071/
38. NCT01519804 | A Study of Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Versus Placebo in Combination With Paclitaxel Plus Platinum in Patients With Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer | ClinicalTrials.gov, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01519804
39. A Study of Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Versus Placebo in Combination With Paclitaxel Plus Platinum in Patients With Squamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer - Clinical Trials | Stanford Medicine, accessed September 15, 2025, https://clinicaltrials.stanford.edu/trials/a/NCT01519804.html
40. A Study of Onartuzumab in Combination With Erlotinib in Patients With MET-Positive Stage IIIB or IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Carrying an Activating Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Mutation | ClinicalTrials.gov, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01887886?term=MetMAb%20NSCLC&viewType=Table&rank=7
41. Onartuzumab Withdrawn Phase 1 / 2 Trials for Lung Cancer Treatment | DrugBank Online, accessed September 15, 2025, https://go.drugbank.com/drugs/DB11746/clinical_trials?conditions=DBCOND0028388&phase=1%2C2&purpose=treatment&status=withdrawn
42. METGastric: A phase III study of onartuzumab plus mFOLFOX6 in patients with metastatic HER2-negative (HER2-) and MET-positive (MET+) adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction (GEC). - ASCO, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.asco.org/abstracts-presentations/ABSTRACT147779
43. MetGastric: A randomized phase III study of onartuzumab (MetMAb) in combination with mFOLFOX6 in patients with metastatic HER2-negative and MET-positive adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction. - ASCO, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.asco.org/abstracts-presentations/ABSTRACT114845
44. METGastric: A phase III study of onartuzumab plus mFOLFOX6 in ..., accessed September 15, 2025, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/jco.2015.33.15_suppl.4012
45. A Randomized Phase II Study of FOLFOX With or Without the MET Inhibitor Onartuzumab in Advanced Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach and Gastroesophageal Junction - PubMed, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27401892/
46. A Study of Onartuzumab (MetMAb) in Combination With mFOLFOX6 in Patients With Metastatic Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) Negative Gastroesophageal Cancer | ClinicalTrials.gov, accessed September 15, 2025, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01590719
47. Effect of Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin With or Without Onartuzumab in HER2-Negative, MET-Positive Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: The METGastric Randomized Clinical Trial - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5824210/
48. Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Phase II Study of Onartuzumab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Placebo Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Recurrent Glioblastoma: Efficacy, Safety, and Hepatocyte Growth Factor and O 6 -Methylguanine-DNA Methyltransferase Biomarker Analyses - PubMed, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27918718/
49. Onartuzumab Shows No Additional Benefit When Combined With Bevacizumab in GBM, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.onclive.com/view/onartuzumab-shows-no-additional-benefit-when-combined-with-bevacizumab-in-gbm
50. Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Phase ..., accessed September 15, 2025, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2015.64.7685
51. Study Details | FOLFOX/Bevacizumab With Onartuzumab (MetMAb) Versus Placebo as First-Line Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer | ClinicalTrials.gov, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01418222
52. A randomized, phase II, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluating onartuzumab (MetMAb) in combination with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. - eCommons@AKU, accessed September 15, 2025, https://ecommons.aku.edu/eastafrica_fhs_mc_haematol_oncol/88/
53. A randomized, double-blind, phase II study of first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab with onartuzumab versus placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). | Journal of Clinical Oncology - ASCO Publications, accessed September 15, 2025, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/jco.2015.33.3_suppl.663
54. A Phase II Randomized Trial (GO27827) of First-Line FOLFOX Plus Bevacizumab with or Without the MET Inhibitor Onartuzumab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer - PubMed, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28209746/
55. A Phase II Randomized Trial (GO27827) of First‐Line FOLFOX Plus Bevacizumab with or Without the MET Inhibitor Onartuzumab in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer - PMC, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5344636/
56. A Phase II Randomized Trial (GO27827) of First‐Line FOLFOX Plus ..., accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5344636/
57. NCT01456325 | A Study of Onartuzumab (MetMAb) in Combination With Tarceva (Erlotinib) in Participants With Met Diagnostic-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Who Have Received Chemotherapy For Advanced or Metastatic Disease (MetLung) | ClinicalTrials.gov, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01456325
58. Results From the Phase III Randomized Trial of... : Journal of Clinical Oncology - Ovid, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.ovid.com/journals/jclon/abstract/10.1200/jco.2016.69.2160~results-from-the-phase-iii-randomized-trial-of-onartuzumab
59. Results From the Phase III Randomized Trial of Onartuzumab Plus ..., accessed September 15, 2025, https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2160
60. METLung: a disappointing result in a challenging patient population - AME Publishing Company, accessed September 15, 2025, https://cdn.amegroups.cn/journals/pbpc/files/journals/3/articles/13579/public/13579-PB2-5063-R4.pdf
61. Roche provides update on phase III study of onartuzumab in people with specific type of lung cancer - Drug Target Review, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.drugtargetreview.com/news/661/roche-provides-update-phase-iii-study-onartuzumab-people-specific-type-lung-cancer/
62. Results From the Phase III Randomized Trial of Onartuzumab Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib in Previously Treated Stage IIIB or IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: METLung - PubMed, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27937096/
63. Results From the Phase III Randomized Trial of Onartuzumab Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib in Previously Treated Stage IIIB or IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: METLung - ASCO Publications, accessed September 15, 2025, https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2160?role=tab
64. Onartuzumab plus erlotinib versus erlotinib in previously treated stage IIIb or IV NSCLC: Results from the pivotal phase III randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled METLung (OAM4971g) global trial. - ASCO, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.asco.org/abstracts-presentations/ABSTRACT128045
65. Targeting MET and EGFR in NSCLC—what can we learn from the recently reported phase III trial of onartuzumab in combination with erlotinib in advanced non-small cell lung cancer? - PMC - PubMed Central, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4367679/
66. Roche halting late-stage study of onartuzumab in patients with lung cancer over lack of efficacy - FirstWord Pharma, accessed September 15, 2025, https://firstwordpharma.com/story/1104525
67. Roche suffers setback as MetMab fails Phase III lung cancer trial - PharmaTimes, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pharmatimes.com/news/roche_suffers_setback_as_metmab_fails_phase_iii_lung_cancer_trial_1001608/
68. Genentech cancer drug falters - Roche's shares fall - SFGATE, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.sfgate.com/health/article/genentech-cancer-drug-falters-roche-s-shares-5285702.php
69. Onartuzumab in lung cancer: the fall of Icarus?, accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1586/14737140.2015.1031219
70. Negative results of METLung study: an opportunity to better ..., accessed September 15, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4367676/
71. MET Gene Copy Number Predicts Worse Overall Survival in Patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC); A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis - Research journals, accessed September 15, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0107677
72. Results From the Phase III Randomized Trial of Onartuzumab Plus Erlotinib Versus Erlotinib in Previously Treated Stage IIIB or IV Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: METLung - ASCO Publications, accessed September 15, 2025, https://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2016.69.2160
73. The efficacy and safety of onartuzumab in patients with solid cancers: A meta-analysis of randomized trials - Dongguk University, accessed September 15, 2025, https://pure.dongguk.edu/en/publications/the-efficacy-and-safety-of-onartuzumab-in-patients-with-solid-can
74. Safety of Onartuzumab in Patients with Solid Tumors: Experience to Date from the Onartuzumab Clinical Trial Program | PLOS One - Research journals, accessed September 15, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139679