MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Non-classical BRAF melanoma: A retrospective review of disease characteristics and prognostic implications.

2017· review· en· W2727112076 on OpenAlexaff
Ambika Parmar, Harriet Feilotter, Tara Baetz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineV600EMelanomaRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineOncologyCohortCancerDiseaseMutationVemurafenibCancer researchMetastatic melanomaGeneGeneticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e21060 Background: Activating mutations in the BRAF gene occur in 40-60% of melanomas with the majority of mutations resulting in V600E/K. Previous cohort studies have identified rates of non-V600E/K BRAF mutations to occur in 5-12% of patients. Despite this, there remains limited evidence characterizing the disease characteristics and outcomes of patients who harbor the non-classical BRAF mutation. Methods: Retrospective review of all melanoma patients treated at a tertiary cancer center that had BRAF mutation testing through targeted sequencing. Three groups of patients were identified and compared with respect to patient and disease characteristics: a) BRAF negative; b) BRAF V600E/K positive; c) BRAF non-V600E/K positive. Results: BRAF testing was performed in 168 melanoma patients of which 101 (60%) were BRAF negative; 55 (33%) were BRAF V600E/K positive; 12 (7%) were BRAF non-V600E/K positive (2 G466E, 1 of each G469E, K601N, K601E, L597Q, L597S, V741I, N594G, D594N, V600R and 1 with both K601N & V600E). Of these, 147 patients had baseline demographic and treatment data available for analysis. BRAF mutations were more common among males (45.6% of men vs. 22.7% of women, p = 0.03). No significant differences between other baseline patient demographics noted. Pathological characteristics revealed a non-significant trend toward poorer prognostic factors with BRAF non-V600E/K patients having increased Breslow depth (7.0 mm vs. 5.0 mm BRAF negative, 4.3 mm BRAF V600E/K) and higher rates of ulceration (71% vs. 44% BRAF negative, 30% BRAF V600E/K). BRAF non-V600E/K patients displayed a non-significant trend toward poorer overall survival (71 months vs. 215 months BRAF negative, 125 months BRAF V600E/K). Conclusions: Non-V600E/K BRAF positive patients appear to display less favorable disease characteristics and outcomes as compared to BRAF negative and BRAF V600E/K positive patients. Non-V600E/K melanoma show limited response to BRAF targeted therapy; however, evidence suggests the presence of non-classical mutations may confer susceptibility to MEK inhibition. Further characterization of non-V600E/K BRAF melanoma may allow for more refined prognostication and treatment decisions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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