Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32913986›Full record

ArticleJCO precision oncology2018

Phase I Study of the BRAF Inhibitor Vemurafenib in Combination With the Mammalian Target of Rapamycin Inhibitor Everolimus in Patients With

Vivek Subbiah, Shiraj Sen, Kenneth R Hess, Filip Janku, David S Hong, Soumen Khatua, Daniel D Karp, Javier Munoz, Gerald S Falchook, Roman Groisberg and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO precision oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Dual inhibition of BRAF and mTOR inCold Spring Harbor molecular case studies · 2020
    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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vivek Subbiah, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Shiraj Sen, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Kenneth R Hess, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Filip Janku, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
David S Hong, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Soumen Khatua, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Daniel D Karp, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Javier Munoz, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Gerald S Falchook, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Roman Groisberg, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Apostolia M Tsimberidou, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Steven I Sherman, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Patrick Hwu, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
Funda Meric-Bernstam, , , , , , , , , , , , and , The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and , Sarah Cannon Research Institute at HealthONE, Denver, CO.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Fabien Delerue · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeParallel activation of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase-mammalian target of rapamycin pathway represents a mechanism of primary and acquired resistance to BRAF-targeted therapy, but the two pathways have yet to be cotargeted in humans. We performed a phase I study to evaluate the safety and activity of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib in combination with the mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor everolimus in PATIENTS AND

methodsWe performed a 3+3 dose-escalation study with escalating doses of both oral (PO) vemurafenib administered twice a day and PO everolimus administered daily.

resultsTwenty patients with advanced cancers were enrolled. The median adult age was 64 years (range, 17 to 85 years); two pediatric patients were 10 and 13 years old. Patients were heavily pretreated with prior BRAF or MEK inhibitors (n = 11), phase I clinical trial therapy (n = 10), surgery (n = 18), radiation therapy (n = 11), and chemotherapy (n=13). One of the two pediatric patients initially experienced grade 3 rash, but after dermatologic intervention, the patient remains on trial with partial response and no dose reduction at time of analysis. Four dose-limiting toxicities (rash, n = 1; fatigue, n = 3) were observed at dose level 2. Therefore, dose level 1 (vemurafenib 720 mg PO twice a day and everolimus 5 mg PO daily) was the maximum-tolerated dose. Overall, four patients (22%) had a partial response and nine patients (50%) had stable disease as best response. One pediatric patient with pleomorphic xanthroastrocytoma remains on protocol with continued clinical response after 38 cycles.

conclusionThe combination of vemurafenib 720 mg PO twice a day and everolimus 5 mg PO daily is safe and well tolerated and has activity across histologies, with partial responses noted in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer, melanoma, optic nerve glioma, and xanthroastrocytoma, including patients who previously experienced progression on BRAF and/or MEK inhibitor therapy. Further investigation in a larger cohort of molecularly matched patients is warranted.

Identifiers

PMID32913986
PMCPMC7446411
OpenAlexW2890706095

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.