Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25001266›Full record

Trial reportThe oncologist2014

Clinical benefit assessment of vismodegib therapy in patients with advanced basal cell carcinoma.

Brigitte Dreno, Nicole Basset-Seguin, Ivor Caro, Huibin Yue, Dirk Schadendorf

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in The oncologist, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Frequency and Genomic Aspects of Intrinsic Resistance to Vismodegib in Locally Advanced Basal Cell Carcinoma.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2022
    Article
  5. Preventing complications in dermatologic surgery: Presurgical concerns.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Myths in the Diagnosis and Management of Orbital Tumors.Middle East African journal of ophthalmology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Brigitte DrenoCHU de Nantes, Nantes, France; Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA; Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany brigitte.dreno@wanadoo.fr.
Nicole Basset-SeguinCHU de Nantes, Nantes, France; Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA; Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany.
Ivor CaroCHU de Nantes, Nantes, France; Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA; Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany.
Huibin YueCHU de Nantes, Nantes, France; Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA; Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany.
Dirk SchadendorfCHU de Nantes, Nantes, France; Hôpital Saint-Louis, Paris, France; Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California, USA; Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeVismodegib was approved for the treatment of advanced basal cell carcinoma (aBCC) based on the pivotal ERIVANCE BCC study. The primary endpoint (objective response rate [ORR]) was assessed 9 months after the last patient was enrolled. To confirm the clinical benefit of vismodegib, an additional analysis was performed 12 months after the primary analysis. MATERIALS AND

methodsERIVANCE BCC was a multicenter, nonrandomized, two-cohort study of 104 patients with histologically confirmed aBCC. Patients received 150 mg oral vismodegib daily until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal. An independent review panel comprising three expert clinicians reviewed patient photographs individually and as a consensus panel to evaluate baseline disease severity and clinical benefit after vismodegib treatment in 71 patients with locally advanced BCC (laBCC).

resultsSixty-three patients were efficacy evaluable; baseline and postprogression photographs for 61 were available for review. Baseline disease severity was judged as 5 or 4 (very severe or moderately severe) in 71.4%. Clinical benefit was observed in 76.2% (significant: 65.1%; some: 11.1%). Interpanelist agreement (maximum difference ≤1 point among panelists' scores in 65.1% and 87.3% of patients for clinical benefit and baseline disease severity, respectively) and correlation between individual and panel reviews were strong. Clinical benefit scores showed good concordance with the protocol-specified ORR obtained by an independent review facility and with investigator-assessed response.

conclusionClinical benefit assessed by independent review based on expert clinical judgment provides strong evidence that treatment with vismodegib results in clinically meaningful and durable responses in patients with laBCC.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAnilidesAntineoplastic AgentsBasal Cell CarcinomaCohort StudiesDisease ProgressionFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasm StagingPyridinesAnilidesAntineoplastic AgentsHhAntag691PyridinesAdvanced basal cell carcinomaClinical benefitERIVANCE BCCIndependent panel reviewVismodegib

Identifiers

PMID25001266
PMCPMC4122481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.