4.6 Article

Treatment patterns and outcomes in BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma patients with brain metastases receiving vemurafenib in the real-world setting

期刊

CANCER MEDICINE
卷 4, 期 8, 页码 1205-1213

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.475

关键词

BRAF mutation; brain metastases; melanoma brain metastases; metastatic melanoma; vemurafenib

类别

资金

  1. Genentech, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Brain metastases are a common and serious complication among patients with metastatic melanoma. The selective BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib has demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant melanoma brain metastases (MBM). We examined the real-world application and clinical outcomes of vemurafenib in this patient population. Demographic, treatment patterns, response, and survival data were collected from medical charts. Clinical data on 283 patients with active BRAF V600E-mutant MBM treated with vemurafenib were provided by 70 US oncologists. Mean age was 57.2 years, 60.8% were male, 67.5% had ECOG performance status of 0-1, and 43.1% used corticosteroids at vemurafenib initiation. Median follow-up was 5.7 months. Following vemurafenib initiation, 48.1% of patients experienced intracranial response and 45.6% experienced extracranial response. The Kaplan-Meier estimate for overall survival was 59% at 12 months. Multivariate analyses showed associations between intracranial response and both corticosteroid use and vemurafenib as initial therapy after MBM diagnosis. Larger size (5-10 mm vs. <5 mm) and number of brain metastases (>= 5 vs. <2) and progressive extracranial disease at treatment initiation were associated with decreased intracranial response and increased risk of disease progression. Multiple extracranial sites (2 vs. <2) and the absence of local treatments were also associated with increased risk of progression. Increased risk of death was associated with >= 2 extracranial disease sites, progressive extracranial disease, and >= 5 brain metastases. Subgroups of MBM patients may derive more benefit with vemurafenib, warranting prospective investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据