CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 223Cancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersMelanoma and MAPK PathwaysCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab in Patients With BRAF V600 Mutant and BRAF Wild-Type Advanced Melanoma: A Pooled Analysis of 4 Clinical Trials

Larkin, James, Lao, Christopher D., Urba, Walter J., McDermott, David F., Horak, Christine, Jiang, Joel, Wolchok, Jedd D.·2015·JAMA Oncology
DOI 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1184
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The anti-PD-1 therapeutic antibody, nivolumab, has demonstrated clinical activity in patients with advanced melanoma. The activity of nivolumab in subgroups of patients with tumors which have wild-type BRAF kinase vs patients with tumors having mutant BRAF has not systematically been explored in a large dataset. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in patients with wild-type BRAF and mutant BRAF metastatic melanoma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a retrospective analysis of data pooled from 4 clinical trials of nivolumab in 440 adult patients with unresectable stage III or stage IV melanoma, who had been tested for BRAF mutational status while participating in one of the studies. INTERVENTION: The investigational drug, nivolumab, was administered intravenously to study participants over a 60-minute period, at doses of 0.1, 0.3, 1.0, 3.0, or 10.0 mg/kg every 2 weeks until disease progression, discontinuation owing to adverse events, withdrawal, or end of study. Most patients (83%) received nivolumab at a dosage of 3 mg/kg. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Best overall response by modified World Health Organization or Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors criteria and safety profile. RESULTS: Of a total of 440 patients from 4 nivolumab clinical trials included in the analysis, 334 were BRAF wild-type and 106 were positive for BRAF V600 mutation. With the exception of prior BRAF inhibitor therapy, the demographics were well balanced between the 2 cohorts. In patients evaluable for response, the objective response rates were 34.6% (95% CI, 28.3-41.3) for the 217 patients with wild-type BRAF status and 29.7% (95% CI, 19.7-41.5) for the 74 with mutant BRAF status. The objective response rates did not seem to be affected by prior BRAF inhibitor therapy, prior ipilimumab therapy, or PD-L1 status of the tumor. The median duration of objective response was 14.8 months (95% CI, 11.1-24.0 months) for wild-type BRAF and 11.2 months (95% CI, 7.3-22.9 months) for mutant BRAF. Median time to objective response was 2.2 months in both patient groups. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events of any grade was 68.3% in the wild-type BRAF group and 58.5% in the mutant BRAF group, with grade 3 or 4 adverse events in 11.7% and 2.8% of patients, respectively. Treatment-related AEs of any grade that occurred in at least 5% of patients in either group were fatigue, pruritus, rash, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this retrospective analysis suggest that nivolumab has similar efficacy and safety outcomes in patients with wild-type or mutant BRAF, regardless of prior BRAF inhibitor or ipilimumab treatment.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1184

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Larkin, J., Lao, C. D., Urba, W. J., McDermott, D. F., Horak, C., Jiang, J., & Wolchok, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Royal Marsden Hospital (GB)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Earle A. Chiles Research Institute at Providence Cancer Center, Portland, Oregon
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb (United States) (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Larkin, James
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Oncology
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2015-07-01
Volume
1
Issue
4
Pages
433
ISSN
2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1184
OpenAlex
W1534815147
Cited by
223
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 40 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 6
FWCI
14.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JAMA Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Melanoma and MAPK Pathways
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Keywords
nivolumab, BRAF V600 mutation, BRAF wild-type melanoma, advanced melanoma, metastatic melanoma, anti-PD-1 therapy, objective response rate, treatment safety, BRAF inhibitor therapy, ipilimumab, PD-L1 expression, duration of response, subgroup analysis, immunotherapy efficacy, drug safety profile, adverse events
MeSH terms
Ipilimumab, Nivolumab, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Antineoplastic Agents, Clinical Trials as Topic, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Mutation, Neoplasm Staging, Phenotype, Retrospective Studies, Skin Neoplasms, Time Factors, Biomarkers, Tumor, Signal Transduction, Treatment Outcome, Disease Progression, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Protein Kinase Inhibitors, Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Young Adult, Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review