MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluating clinical activity of MAPK targeted therapies (TT) in cancer patients (pts) with non-V600 BRAF mutations: A systematic scoping review and meta-analysis.

2021· article· en· W3169642351 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Dankner, Yifan Wang, Rouhi Fazelzad, Anna Spreafico, David W. Cescon, George Zogopoulos, April A. N. Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersConquer Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyCancerLogistic regressionOdds ratioClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3089 Background: Oncogenic nonV600 BRAF mutations (muts) can be classified according to distinct molecular characteristics. TT strategies for class 2 and 3 BRAF muts have not been established. In recent years there have been numerous reports of clinical activity for various TT in pts with nonV600 muts. We performed a systematic scoping review and meta-analysis to assess treatment outcomes with MAPK TT according to BRAF class, cancer type and TT type. Methods: An extensive literature search was conducted from 2010-20. All studies were independently reviewed and extracted by 2 reviewers and in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Individual patient level data were collected and analyzed from studies that met the following inclusion criteria: published reports of 1) advanced cancer pts with; 2) class 2 or class 3 nonV600 BRAF muts; 3) who received MAPK TT; 4) with treatment response (TR) data available. Primary outcome was overall TR rate (TRR). To assess differences between groups, odds ratios (OR) were calculated using a multi-level mixed-effects logistic regression model. Results: 15,171 studies were screened and 168 were included for data extraction. We identified 100 studies with a total of 396 pts that met inclusion criteria. There were 17 reports (161 pts) of prospective clinical trials and 83 retrospective studies (235 pts). RECIST criteria were used for TR assessment in 183 (46%) pts. The entire study included 280 pts with class 2 and 116 pts with class 3 BRAF muts. Overall, 111 (28%) pts achieved a TR. TRR according to primary tumor type, BRAF class, and TT type is indicated in Table. TRR was lower in reports of prospective studies compared to retrospective studies (OR 0.14, P = 0.002), and in studies that employed RECIST criteria vs. those that didn’t (OR 0.29, P = 0.044). TRR was higher among pts with class 2 muts vs. those with class 3 muts (OR 2.21, P = 0.042). Conclusions: These data establish that MAPK TT have demonstrated clinical activity in cancers with oncogenic nonV600 mutations, and that BRAF mutation class may dictate responsiveness to different TT strategies. TRR may be over-estimated in the retrospective literature. This analysis will be valuable for molecular tumor boards and to guide future clinical trial design. Prospective clinical trials of TT in this pt population are warranted.[Table: see text]

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.028
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.614
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations→French-language works237,207→