MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096186999 · doi:10.7759/cureus.11224

Immunotherapy Benefit in a Patient With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer and a Rare BRAF Mutation

2020· article· en· W3096186999 on OpenAlexafffund
Rebekah Rittberg, Shantanu Banerji, Susan Green, Gefei Qing, David E. Dawe

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of ManitobaResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancerCare Manitoba FoundationGlaxoSmithKlineManitoba Medical Service FoundationPfizerAstraZenecaHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicineAnaplastic lymphoma kinaseNivolumabImmunotherapyLung cancerOncologyMutationEpidermal growth factor receptorCancer researchInternal medicineChemotherapyTargeted therapyCancerGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immunotherapy is less effective in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with driver mutations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) and some may extrapolate this trend to other driver mutations. Up to 4% of NSCLC cases contain a BRAF mutation. Most BRAF mutations are V600E, and little is known about the impact of treatment in rare BRAF G469A mutations. We present a case of a patient found to have BRAF G469A mutated NSCLC. She was diagnosed with Stage IIIB NSCLC and treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiation. Post-treatment imaging demonstrated disease progression and she was started on nivolumab, resulting in a dramatic and prolonged response which is ongoing after 76 cycles. Her substantial response and prolonged benefit suggest that BRAF-mutated NSCLC may respond better than EGFR- or ALK-driven disease to immunotherapy. Due to the rarity of specific mutations, this case adds to the limited current published literature on NSCLC harbouring a BRAF G469A mutation and suggests that immunotherapy is a reasonable treatment option.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureusSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207