MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An open-label, multicenter safety study of vemurafenib (PLX4032, RO5185426) in patients with metastatic melanoma.

2012· article· en· W2529971012 on OpenAlexaff
James Larkin, Paola Queirolo, Ana Arance, Michael P. Brown, Axel Hauschild, Michele Del Vecchio, Grant A. McArthur, Bart Neyns, Jürgen C. Becker, Johan Hansson, David Hogg, Paolo A. Ascierto, Carmen Loquai, Enrique Espinosa, Claus Garbe, Poulam M. Patel, Jacob Schachter, Lada Mitchell, Maria Luisa Veronese, Christian U. Blank

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVemurafenibMedicineInternal medicineClinical endpointRashIpilimumabAdverse effectMelanomaOncologyMetastatic melanomaGastroenterologyDermatologySurgeryCancerClinical trialCancer researchImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8517 Background: Vemurafenib, a BRAF inhibitor, is associated with improved PFS and OS in patients (pts) with BRAFV600-mutant metastatic melanoma (mM). We present preliminary safety and efficacy findings from a safety study of vemurafenib in pts with unresectable stage IIIC/IV mM with BRAFV600 mutations. Methods: Pts with untreated or previously treated stage IIIC/IV BRAFV600 mutation-positive (cobas 4800 BRAF V600 Mutation Test) melanoma were enrolled. Pts received continuous oral vemurafenib 960 mg bid. Primary study endpoint was safety; efficacy (RECIST V 1.1) was a secondary endpoint. Results: Of 1,964 screened pts between Mar and Sep 2011, 914 (47%) were enrolled and 834 were evaluable for safety. Median age was 53 (21–88 years), 55% males. Median time since first mM diagnosis was 7.6 months (0–18 years). At baseline, 80% of pts had ECOG PS 0–1, 11% ECOG PS 2 (missing 9%); 27% of pts had brain metastases, and 31% had elevated LDH. Most pts had received prior systemic therapy (70%) including ipilimumab (14%), MEK and BRAF inhibitors (2%). At data cut-off (Sep 30, 2011), median treatment duration was 68 days (1–223 days) with 87% of pts still on treatment. Of 834 pts, 553 (66%) to date have reported AEs. Of 553 pts reporting AEs, 88% were related to vemurafenib, 33% Grade 3, and 1.9% Grade 4. The most common (>1%) Grade 3/4 AEs were rash (3.6%), arthralgia (3.1%), and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma/keratoacanthoma (4.3%). Most common AEs (>10%) of any grade were arthralgia (31%), rash (29%), fatigue (22%), photosensitivity (21%), nausea (15%), and were similar irrespective of brain metastases and ECOG PS. AEs caused treatment interruption in 141 (17%) pts. Of 109 pts who discontinued treatment (13%), main reasons for withdrawal were progressive disease (60%), death (20%), AEs (6%; most commonly arthritis and abdominal pain). Tumor assessments at Week 8 of treatment were available for 302/834 (36%) pts, 61% pts achieved CR or PR, and 29% had SD. Conclusions: In a setting representative of routine clinical practice, vemurafenib is seen to be well tolerated and both safety profile and activity resemble the phase I–III data although this analysis is limited by the study duration.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicMelanoma and MAPK PathwaysFrench-language works237,207