The Impact of BRAF Mutation Status on Survival Outcomes and Treatment Patterns among Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal cancer presents via multiple different clinical phenotypes that can arise from a variety of different genetic and molecular alterations. The aim of this study was to describe survival outcomes and treatment patterns of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients by v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B1 (BRAF) mutation status. The Alberta Cancer Registry was used to identify all patients >18 years old who had been diagnosed with mCRC in Alberta between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2019 and had received at least one cycle of systemic therapy. Treatment patterns were compared between wild-type and mutant BRAF mCRC patients. Cox regression models and Kaplan–Meier curves were created to assess survival differences by both treatment pattern and BRAF status. A total of 488 patients were identified with mCRC, of which 42 (11.4%) were confirmed to have a BRAF mutation. The most common first-line treatment regimen was either capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) or leucovorin calcium (folinic acid), fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). The median overall survival for mCRC patients was 20.01 months. Mutant BRAF patients had a median survival of 8.21 months compared to 20.03 months among those with wild-type BRAF. BRAF mutations among mCRC patients are associated with a considerably poor prognosis, reinforcing the need for clinical BRAF testing among newly diagnosed patients to better understand their prognosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".