Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26519363›Full record

SynthesisClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2016

Doublet BRAF/MEK inhibition versus single-agent BRAF inhibition in the management of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma, biological rationale and meta-analysis of published data.

O Abdel-Rahman, H ElHalawani, H Ahmed

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Cutaneous toxicities of new treatments for melanoma.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2018
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
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

3 authors.

O Abdel-RahmanClinical Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Lotfy Elsayed street, Cairo, 113331, Egypt. Omar.abdelrhman@med.asu.edu.eg.
H ElHalawaniClinical Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Lotfy Elsayed street, Cairo, 113331, Egypt.
H AhmedClinical Oncology Department, Nasser Institute, Cairo, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

back groundWe executed a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and toxicity of doublet BRAF/MEK inhibition versus single-agent BRAF inhibitor in the management of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma.

methodsEligible studies included prospective studies evaluating doublet regimens versus BRAF-inhibitor monotherapy for the management of BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma.

resultsOur search strategy yielded 200 potentially relevant citations from searched databases. After preclusion of ineligible studies, four studies were included in the final analysis. Efficacy analyses demonstrate that BRAF/MEK inhibition strategy is associated with a significant improvement in ORR [OR 1.35; 95 % CI (1.16, 1.58); P = 0.0002], PFS [HR 0.56; 95 % CI (0.49, 0.64); P < 0.00001] and OS [HR 0.70; 95 % CI (0.58, 0.84); P = 0.0001]. Moreover, this combination is associated with a higher RR for diarrhea [1.30; 95 % CI (1.30, 1.49); P = 0.0002], decreased ejection fraction [4.63; 95 % CI (2.56, 8.37); P = <0.00001], acneiform dermatitis [1.61; 95 % CI (1.03, 2.53); P = 0.04] and pyrexia [1.98; 95 % CI (1.72, 2.27); P < 0.00001].

conclusionsOur meta-analysis has demonstrated that combination of MEK/BRAF inhibitors is associated with higher ORR, PFS and OS. However, this comes at the expense of a higher risk of selected toxicities.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsEnzyme InhibitorsHumansMAP Kinase Kinase KinasesMelanomaProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafBRAF protein, humanEnzyme InhibitorsMAP Kinase Kinase KinasesProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafDabrafenibMelanomaTrametinibVemurafenib

Identifiers

PMID26519363

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.