Outcome and prognostic factors in BRAF mutation positive metastatic melanoma treated with a BRAF inhibitor: A population-based study in British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e20045 Background: BRAF mutations are present in approximately 40-60% of cutaneous melanomas. The BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib has demonstrated dramatic anti-tumour activity in phase III trials in BRAF mutation positive (BRAFm) metastatic/unresectable melanoma; however, there is limited data outside of clinical trials. Methods: All patients > 18 years of age, PS 0-2, with metastatic/unresectable melanoma considered for treatment with vemurafenib in British Columbia between March 2011 to December 2012 were identified. CNS disease, if present, had to be radiographically stable/asymptomatic and treated with radiation and/or surgery. The BRAF V600E mutation status was evaluated centrally on primary or metastatic biopsies using a real-time PCR assay (Cobas 4800 BRAF Mutation Test, Roche Molecular Systems). Vemurafenib was initially provided through an Expanded Access Program/Roche patient assistance program and subsequently through provincial funding. Results: In total, 84 patients were identified that had undergone BRAF mutation screening, 49(58%) were BRAFm, 35(42%) were BRAFwt. For the BRAFm patients 33 have received 1 cycle of vemurafenib and are included in the present analysis (n=21 (64%) 1st line therapy; 12(36%) > 1st line therapy). BRAFm patients: median age 53 y; 64% male; PS 0/1 76%; LDH elevated 51.5%; M1c 91%; 27% history CNS metastases. With a median follow-up of 4.9 m the median PFS, measured from the 1st dose of vemurafenib, was 9 m and the median OS was 12.4 m. The 1 year PFS and OS were 47% and 50%, respectively. The median OS of patients who progressed following vemurafenib was only 2 months. There was an inferior PFS in patients with an elevated LDH (median PFS 5 m vs not reached, p=0.024) prior to receiving vemurafenib. Conclusions: The efficacy of vemurafenibin BRAF + melanoma in this population-based analysis compares favorably to estimates in the clinical trial setting. The survival of patients who progress on vemurafenib is short, highlighting the need to explore combination therapies. An updated analysis will be presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".