Effectiveness of dabrafenib in the treatment of patients with BRAF V600–mutated metastatic melanoma in a Named Patient Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the approval of dabrafenib in patients with BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma, a better understanding of treatment patterns and clinical outcomes with dabrafenib in a clinical setting is warranted. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who received dabrafenib in a compassionate use setting through the Named Patient Program (DESCRIBE I study) during December 2010-August 2013 in Europe, New Zealand and Australia. Of the 331 Named Patient Program patients included, the majority (95.8%) had stage IV disease at dabrafenib initiation and 39.9% had brain metastases (BMs). Dabrafenib was used first line in 67.7% of patients, and median treatment duration was 6.4 months. Dabrafenib was well tolerated. Common grade 2/3 adverse events were hyperkeratosis (7.6%), pyrexia/fever (6.6%), fatigue (5.1%), hand-foot syndrome (5.4%) and nausea (3.6%). Overall response rate was 45.9%, median progression-free survival was 5.2 months (95% confidence interval, 4.2-6.1 months), and median overall survival was 12.4 months (95% confidence interval, 10.2-15.0 months). In patients with known brain metastases (n = 132) versus patients without (n = 199), overall response rate was 42.4% versus 48.2%, progression-free survival was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval, 3.8-5.5 months) versus 5.9 months (95% confidence interval, 4.8-7.8 months) and overall survival was 9.5 months (95% confidence interval, 6.7-12.4 months) versus 15 months (95% confidence interval, 11.1-20.5 months), respectively. Safety and effectiveness of dabrafenib in patients with unresectable advanced BRAF V600-mutant melanoma treated in an Named Patient Program was similar to the clinical trial experience, demonstrating effectiveness of dabrafenib in a nontrial setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".