Dabrafenib plus Trametinib in Pediatric Glioma with BRAF V600 Mutations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Detection of the BRAF V600E mutation in pediatric low-grade glioma has been associated with a lower response to standard chemotherapy. In previous trials, dabrafenib (both as monotherapy and in combination with trametinib) has shown efficacy in recurrent pediatric low-grade glioma with BRAF V600 mutations, findings that warrant further evaluation of this combination as first-line therapy. METHODS: In this phase 2 trial, patients with pediatric low-grade glioma with BRAF V600 mutations who were scheduled to receive first-line therapy were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib or standard chemotherapy (carboplatin plus vincristine). The primary outcome was the independently assessed overall response (complete or partial response) according to the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology criteria. Also assessed were the clinical benefit (complete or partial response or stable disease for ≥24 weeks) and progression-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients underwent randomization (73 to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib and 37 to receive standard chemotherapy). At a median follow-up of 18.9 months, an overall response occurred in 47% of the patients treated with dabrafenib plus trametinib and in 11% of those treated with chemotherapy (risk ratio, 4.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 11.2; P<0.001). Clinical benefit was observed in 86% of the patients receiving dabrafenib plus trametinib and in 46% receiving chemotherapy (risk ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.3 to 2.7). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with dabrafenib plus trametinib than with chemotherapy (20.1 months vs. 7.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.55; P<0.001). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 47% of the patients receiving dabrafenib plus trametinib and in 94% of those receiving chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Among pediatric patients with low-grade glioma with BRAF V600 mutations, dabrafenib plus trametinib resulted in significantly more responses, longer progression-free survival, and a better safety profile than standard chemotherapy as first-line therapy. (Funded by Novartis; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684058.).
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".