MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Open-label, multicenter safety study of vemurafenib in patients with <i>BRAF<sup>V600</sup></i> mutation–positive metastatic melanoma.

2013· article· en· W2597369162 on OpenAlexaff
James Larkin, Michele Del Vecchio, Paolo A. Ascierto, Jacob Schachter, Claus Garbe, Bart Neyns, Mario Mandalà, Paul Lorigan, Wilson H. Miller, Alexander Guminski, Carola Berking, Piotr Rutkowski, Paola Queirolo, Axel Hauschild, Ana Arance, Michael P. Brown, Lada Mitchell, Maria Luisa Veronese, Christian U. Blank

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVemurafenibRashInternal medicineAdverse effectMetastatic melanomaPopulationMelanomaOncologySurgeryGastroenterologyCancerCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9046 Background: Vemurafenib (VEM), a BRAF kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated high response rates and improved progression-free and overall survival in pts with BRAFV600mutation–positive metastatic melanoma (mM). We present interim results from predefined subgroups from a large multicenter, open-label safety study of VEM in pts with mM (NCT01307397). Methods: Pts with BRAFV600mutation–positive histologically confirmed mM received VEM (960 mg BID) as first-line therapy or subsequent to previous therapies. Assessments for safety and efficacy were made every 28 days. Results: As of Feb 29, 2012, 2,265 pts have received VEM. Pts had a median age of 54.0 (13-95) yrs and median time since diagnosis of mM of 6.2 (0-351.9) mos. 59% had received prior systemic therapy. Median time of exposure to VEM as of the cut-off date was 3 (0.03-11.24) mos for the overall population and majority of subgroups, and approximately 2.5 mos for pts with ECOG ≥2 and age ≥75 yrs. 1537 (68%) pts were still receiving VEM at the cut-off date. 728 (32%) pts discontinued, most frequently because of PD (538/728 pts; 74%). Adverse events (AEs) were reported for 87% of all patients, with arthralgia (32%) and rash (26%) the most frequent. The incidences of AEs in the subgroups are summarized (Table). Although efficacy analyses are limited by the short duration of follow-up, six-month OS rate was 76% (95% CI 72-79%) and median PFS was 4.1 mos (95% CI 3.9-4.5 mos). Postbaseline tumor assessments were available for 63% and 30% of pts at wk 8 and 16, respectively. At wk 8 CR: 2%, PR: 57%, SD: 30%, PD: 6%. At wk 16 CR: 3%, PR: 46%, SD: 31%, PD: 15%. Conclusions: Although the overall safety profile of VEM in this study was consistent with previous clinical data, interim analyses of subgroups suggest that very elderly pts may be at higher risk of G3 AEs. Clinical trial information: NCT01307397. [Table: see text]

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: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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