Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41646100›Full record

ArticleESMO real world data and digital oncology2024

Comparative effectiveness among BRAF plus MEK inhibitors for patients with BRAF V600-mutant melanoma.

G K In, K Chen, G Sajeev, R Simpson, S Kalia, D Christensen, D Liu, N Rezai, A di Pietro, J Signorovitch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO real world data and digital oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

G K InUniversity of Southern California, Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center, Division of Oncology, Los Angeles.
K ChenPfizer Inc., Cambridge.
G SajeevAnalysis Group, Boston.
R SimpsonAnalysis Group, Boston.
S KaliaAnalysis Group, Boston.
D ChristensenAnalysis Group, New York.
D LiuAnalysis Group, Boston.
N RezaiPfizer Inc., New York, USA.
A di PietroPfizer Inc., Milan, Italy.
J SignorovitchAnalysis Group, Boston.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Understanding of comparative efficacy of treatments can inform clinical decision-making. This study compared overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) across patients with metastatic BRAFV600-mutant melanoma initiating encorafenib + binimetinib (ENCO + BINI), dabrafenib + trametinib (DAB + TRAM), and vemurafenib + cobimetinib (VEM + COBI). Materials and methods: In this hybrid study, we contextualized OS and PFS between patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma receiving ENCO + BINI in the phase III COLUMBUS trial (enrollment: December 2013 to April 2015) versus real-world data (RWD) from a nationwide electronic health record-derived deidentified database (treatment initiation: 2014-2021). After observing consistent outcomes across trial and RWD, we compared OS and PFS for a pooled ENCO + BINI cohort across these settings versus comparable DAB + TRAM and VEM + COBI cohorts from the real-world database. Results: Of 716 patients [ENCO + BINI ( Conclusions: OS and PFS were longer with ENCO + BINI relative to DAB + TRAM and comparable to VEM + COBI, after adjusting for differences in patient profiles. These findings add to evidence informing the use of combination v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B protein (BRAF)/mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase (MEK) inhibitors in metastatic BRAF V600-mutant melanoma.

Indexed as

binimetinibelectronic health recordencorafenibmelanomaoverall survivalprogression-free survival

Identifiers

PMID41646100
PMCPMC12836643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.