MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evolution of BRAF gene mutation testing and treatment options in BRAF mutation carriers in Canada.

2015· article· en· W2939988319 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Snezana Djokic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMelanoma and MAPK Pathways
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDabrafenibVemurafenibTrametinibMedicineIpilimumabOncologyInternal medicineMelanomaMutationCancerMetastatic melanomaImmunotherapyCancer researchGeneMAPK/ERK pathwayGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e20094 Background: Since 2012, four drugs approval in Canada have changed the treatment practice in melanoma – immunotherapy ipilimumab and targeted therapies vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib, all three being indicated for patients who harbor a BRAF mutation. The objective of this study is to show the evolution in BRAF mutation testing usage in Canada since 2012, and to evaluate drug choices in BRAF mutation carriers. Methods: This retrospective observational study utilized IMS Brogan Enhanced Tumor Studies, an anonymised patient database collected through quarterly physician panel survey, which provides comprehensive insight into total cancer care. The inclusion criteria consisted of Canadian patients diagnosed with stage IV melanoma between 2012 and 2014 and entered into the database from October 2013 to September 2014. The carriers of BRAF mutation were then evaluated based on the type of drug treatment: targeted therapy (TT – vemurafenib, dabrafenib and trametinib), immunotherapy (IT – ipilimumab and aldesleukin) or chemotherapy (CT – all other antineoplastic drugs excluding TT and IT). Results: Out of 29, 151 and 125 patients diagnosed in 2012, 2013 and 2014 respectively, BRAF testing was performed in 16 (55%), 124 (82%) and 82 (65%) patients. The number of patients who harbored a BRAF mutation was 13, 76 and 34, with the following anticancer drug treatment: CT (with no exposure to TT or IT) was used in 10 (77%), 32 (41%) and 9 (26%) patients; TT was used in 3 (23%), 32 (41%) and 23 (68%) patients; IT was the option in 14 (18%) and 8 (24%) patients in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The average number of days between the BRAF testing and the first TT were 384, 64 and 25 days in 2012, 2013 and 2014, respectively. Conclusions: The trend for BRAF mutation testing has grown since 2012, but a significant percentage of patients remain untested prior to their first treatment. In BRAF mutation carriers, TT appears to be the treatment of choice, although a surprisingly high percentage of patients continue to be treated with CT. Further studies with longer follow up are needed in order to better understand the uptake of BRAF testing as well as drug utilization in those who carry a BRAF mutation.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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