Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32672795›Full record

Trial reportJAMA oncology2020

Association of BRAF V600E/K Mutation Status and Prior BRAF/MEK Inhibition With Pembrolizumab Outcomes in Advanced Melanoma: Pooled Analysis of 3 Clinical Trials.

Igor Puzanov, Antoni Ribas, Caroline Robert, Jacob Schachter, Marta Nyakas, Adil Daud, Ana Arance, Matteo S Carlino, Steven J O'Day, Georgina V Long and 11 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase III
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Predictive Value ofFrontiers in immunology · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Early metastaticAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

21 authors at 18 institutions in 9 countries.

Igor PuzanovRoswell Park Cancer Institute, Buffalo, New York.
Antoni RibasUniversity of California, Los Angeles.
Caroline RobertGustave Roussy, Paris-Sud University, Villejuif, France.
Jacob SchachterThe Chaim Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Marta NyakasDepartment of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital-Radiumhospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Adil DaudDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco.
Ana AranceHospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Matteo S CarlinoCrown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Steven J O'DayJohn Wayne Cancer Institute, Providence St John's Health Center, Santa Monica, California.
Georgina V LongMelanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Kim A MargolinCity of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, California.
Reinhard DummerUniversity Hospital of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Dirk SchadendorfUniversity Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Jose LutzkyMount Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center, Miami Beach, Florida.
Paolo A AsciertoIstituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS Fondazione G. Pascale, Napoli, Italy.
Ahmad TarhiniH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida.
Jianxin LinMerck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Robin MoggThe Bill and Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Blanca Homet MorenoMerck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Nageatte IbrahimMerck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey.
Omid HamidThe Angeles Clinic and Research Institute, Los Angeles, California.
Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) · USAngeles Clinic and Research Institute · USBlacktown & Mount Druitt Hospital · AUCity Of Hope National Medical Center · USEssen University Hospital · DEGates Foundation · USHospital Clínic de Barcelona · ESIstituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" · ITMelanoma Institute Australia · AUMoffitt Cancer Center · USOslo University Hospital · NORoswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center · USSaint John's Health Center · USSheba Medical Center · ILUniversité Paris-Sud · FRUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The optimal sequencing of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapy for BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma is not well established. Objective: To assess the association of BRAF wild-type (WT) or BRAF V600E/K-mutant status and BRAF inhibitor (BRAFi) with or without MEK inhibitor (MEKi) therapy with response to pembrolizumab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a post hoc subgroup analysis of pooled data from 3 multinational, multisite studies: KEYNOTE-001 (data cutoff September 1, 2017), KEYNOTE-002 (data cutoff May 30, 2018), and KEYNOTE-006 (data cutoff December 4, 2017). Patients included in this analysis were adults with advanced melanoma and known BRAF V600E/K tumor status who had received pembrolizumab. Interventions: Patients received pembrolizumab in dosages of 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, and overall survival (OS). Objective response rates, 4-year PFS, and OS rates were compared in the following patient subgroups: BRAF WT vs BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma and BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma with vs without previous treatment with BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy. Results: The overall study population (N = 1558) included 944 men (60.6%) and 614 women (39.4%). The mean (SD) age was 60.0 years (14.0). The ORR was 38.3% (596/1558), 4-year PFS rate was 22.0%, and 4-year OS rate was 36.9%. For patients with BRAF WT (n = 1124) and BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma (n = 434), ORR was 39.8% (n = 447) and 34.3% (n = 149), 4-year PFS rate was 22.9% and 19.8%, and 4-year OS rate was 37.5% and 35.1%, respectively. Patients with BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma who had (n = 271) vs had not (n = 163) previously received BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy had baseline characteristics with worse prognosis; ORR was 28.4% (n = 77) and 44.2% (n = 72), 4-year PFS rate was 15.2% and 27.8%, and 4-year OS rate was 26.9% and 49.3%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this subgroup analysis support the use of pembrolizumab for treatment of advanced melanoma regardless of BRAF V600E/K mutation status or receipt of prior BRAFi with or without MEKi therapy.

Indexed as

AgedAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedMitogen-Activated Protein Kinase KinasesMutationProtein Kinase InhibitorsProto-Oncogene Proteins B-rafSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalBRAF protein, humanMitogen-Activated Protein Kinase KinasespembrolizumabProtein Kinase InhibitorsProto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf

Identifiers

PMID32672795
PMCPMC7366279
OpenAlexW3043661095

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.