MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540613192 · doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4877

Systemic Therapy for Previously Untreated Advanced <i>BRAF</i>-Mutated Melanoma

2016· review· en· W2540613192 on OpenAlexaff
Tahira Devji, Oren Levine, Binod Neupane, Joseph Beyene, Feng Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Oncology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioOncologyInternal medicineMelanomaRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisOdds ratioConfidence intervalAdverse effectMEK inhibitorProgression-free survivalOverall survivalCancer researchMAPK/ERK pathway

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: Multiple effective first-line systemic treatment options are available for patients with advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. A lack of head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing targeted and immunotherapies leaves uncertainty regarding optimal first-line treatment. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative efficacy and safety of systemic therapies for advanced, treatment-naive, BRAF-mutated melanoma. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials for phase 2 or 3 RCTs published up until April 29, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: We included RCTs in which at least 1 intervention was a targeted (BRAF or MEK) or an immune checkpoint (cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] or programmed cell death 1 [PD-1]) inhibitor. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model to combine direct comparisons with indirect evidence. We estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and odds ratios (OR) for objective response rate (ORR) and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Sixteen eligible articles reporting 15 RCTs involving 6662 patients assigned to 1 of 10 treatment strategies were included. Both BRAF/MEK and PD-1 were associated with improved OS benefit compared with all other treatments except CTLA-4/granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor. There was no significant difference in OS between BRAF/MEK and PD-1 (HR, 1.02; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.72-1.45). The network meta-analysis showed a significant advantage of BRAF/MEK compared with all other treatment strategies for PFS. BRAF/MEK was associated with higher ORR (OR, 2.00; 95% CrI, 1.64-2.45) compared with BRAF alone, with both being superior in achieving ORR compared with other treatments. Chemotherapy and PD-1 were associated with lowest risk of serious adverse events. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events between chemotherapy and PD-1 (OR, 1.00; 95% CrI, 0.74-1.34). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with other treatments, BRAF/MEK and PD-1 inhibition significantly improved OS. The favorable safety profile of PD-1 inhibitors supports using this option as first-line therapy in circumstances where rapid response is not a priority.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations63
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA OncologySame topicMelanoma and MAPK PathwaysFrench-language works237,207