Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30683711›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2019

Hybrid Capture-Based Genomic Profiling Identifies BRAF V600 and Non-V600 Alterations in Melanoma Samples Negative by Prior Testing.

Lise Boussemart, Annie Nelson, Michael Wong, Jeffrey S Ross, Jeffrey Sosman, Janice Mehnert, Gregory Daniels, Kari Kendra, Siraj Mahamed Ali, Vincent A Miller and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

11 authors.

Lise BoussemartDepartment of Dermatology, Pontchaillou Hospital, CHU de Rennes, Rennes, France.
Annie NelsonFoundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Michael WongMD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Jeffrey S RossFoundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Jeffrey SosmanRobert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Janice MehnertDepartment of Medicine, Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1043-3008
Gregory DanielsMoores Cancer Center, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Kari KendraThe Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Siraj Mahamed AliFoundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Vincent A MillerFoundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1667-3771
Alexa B SchrockFoundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA aschrock@foundationmedicine.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0106-9096

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBRAF and MEK inhibitors are approved for BRAF V600-mutated advanced melanoma, with response rates of up to 70%. Responses to targeted therapies have also been observed for diverse non-V600 BRAF alterations. Thus, sensitive, accurate, and broad detection of BRAF alterations is critical to match patients with available targeted therapies. MATERIALS AND

methodsPathology reports were reviewed for 385 consecutive melanoma cases with BRAF mutations or rearrangements identified using a hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) assay during the course of clinical care.

resultsRecords of prior BRAF molecular testing were available for 79 (21%) cases. Of cases with BRAF V600 mutations, 11/57 (19%) with available data were negative by prior BRAF testing. Prior negative BRAF results were also identified in 16/20 (80%) cases with non-V600 mutations, 2 of which harbored multiple BRAF alterations, and in 2/2 (100%) cases with activating BRAF fusions. Clinical outcomes for a subset of patients are presented.

conclusionCGP identifies diverse activating BRAF alterations in a significant fraction of cases with prior negative testing. Given the proven clinical benefit of BRAF/MEK inhibitors in BRAF-mutated melanoma, CGP should be considered for patients with metastatic melanoma, particularly if other testing is negative. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Published guidelines for melanoma treatment recommend BRAF mutational analysis, but little guidance is provided as to selection criteria for testing methodologies, or as to clinical implications for non-V600 alterations. This study found that hybrid capture-based next-generation sequencing can detect BRAF alterations in samples from a significant fraction of patients with advanced melanoma with prior negative BRAF results. This study highlights the need for oncologists and pathologists to be critically aware of coverage and sensitivity limitations of various assays, particularly regarding non-V600E alterations, of which many are potentially targetable.

Indexed as

GenomicsHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMaleMelanomaProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafSkin NeoplasmsProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafBRAF testingHybrid capture‐based genomic profilingMelanomaV600E

Identifiers

PMID30683711
PMCPMC6516121

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.