Cited by 977Melanoma and MAPK PathwaysCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies

Safety and efficacy of vemurafenib in BRAFV600E and BRAFV600K mutation-positive melanoma (BRIM-3): extended follow-up of a phase 3, randomised, open-label study

Open access
McArthur, Grant A, Chapman, Paul B, Robert, Caroline, Larkin, James, Haanen, John B, Dummer, Reinhard, Ribas, Antoni, Hogg, David +20 more·2014·The Lancet Oncology

Abstract

Background In the BRIM-3 trial, vemurafenib was associated with risk reduction versus dacarbazine of both death and progression in patients with advanced BRAF(V600) mutation-positive melanoma. We present an extended follow-up analysis of the total population and in the BRAF(V600E) and BRAF(V600K) mutation subgroups.Methods Patients older than 18 years, with treatment-naive metastatic melanoma and whose tumour tissue was positive for BRAF(V600) mutations were eligible. Patients also had to have a life expectancy of at least 3 months, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate haematological, hepatic, and renal function. Patients were randomly assigned by interactive voice recognition system to receive either vemurafenib (960 mg orally twice daily) or dacarbazine (1000 mg/m(2) of body surface area intravenously every 3 weeks). Coprimary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population (n=675), with data censored at crossover. A sensitivity analysis was done. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01006980.Findings 675 eligible patients were enrolled from 104 centres in 12 countries between Jan 4, 2010, and Dec 16, 2010. 337 patients were randomly assigned to receive vemurafenib and 338 to receive dacarbazine. Median follow-up was 12·5 months (IQR 7·7-16·0) on vemurafenib and 9·5 months (3·1-14·7) on dacarbazine. 83 (25%) of the 338 patients initially randomly assigned to dacarbazine crossed over from dacarbazine to vemurafenib. Median overall survival was significantly longer in the vemurafenib group than in the dacarbazine group (13·6 months [95% CI 12·0-15·2] vs 9·7 months [7·9-12·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·57-0·87]; p=0·0008), as was median progression-free survival (6·9 months [95% CI 6·1-7·0] vs 1·6 months [1·6-2·1]; HR 0·38 [95% CI 0·32-0·46]; p<0·0001). For the 598 (91%) patients with BRAF(V600E) disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 13·3 months (95% CI 11·9-14·9) compared with 10·0 months (8·0-14·0) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·93]; p=0·0085); median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·2-7·0) and 1·6 months (1·6-2·1), respectively (HR 0·39 [95% CI 0·33-0·47]; p<0·0001). For the 57 (9%) patients with BRAF(V600K) disease, median overall survival in the vemurafenib group was 14·5 months (95% CI 11·2-not estimable) compared with 7·6 months (6·1-16·6) in the dacarbazine group (HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·21-0·90]; p=0·024); median progression-free survival was 5·9 months (95% CI 4·4-9·0) and 1·7 months (1·4-2·9), respectively (HR 0·30 [95% CI 0·16-0·56]; p<0·0001). The most frequent grade 3-4 events were cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma (65 [19%] of 337 patients) and keratoacanthomas (34 [10%]), rash (30 [9%]), and abnormal liver function tests (38 [11%]) in the vemurafenib group and neutropenia (26 [9%] of 287 patients) in the dacarbazine group. Eight (2%) patients in the vemurafenib group and seven (2%) in the dacarbazine group had grade 5 events.Interpretation Inhibition of BRAF with vemurafenib improves survival in patients with the most common BRAF(V600E) mutation and in patients with the less common BRAF(V600K) mutation.Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche-Genentech.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70012-9

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McArthur, G. A., Chapman, P. B., Robert, C., Larkin, J., Haanen, J. B., Dummer, R., Ribas, A., Hogg, D., Hamid, O., Ascierto, P. A., Garbe, C., Testori, A., Maio, M., Lorigan, P., Lebbé, C., Jouary, T., Schadendorf, D., O'Day, S. J., Kirkwood, J. M., Eggermont, A. M., Dréno, B., Sosman, J. A., Flaherty, K. T., Yin, M., Caro, I., Cheng, S., Trunzer, K., & Hauschild, A.
Affiliations
  • Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (AU)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
  • Institut Gustave Roussy (FR)
  • Royal Marsden Hospital (GB)
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • Angeles Clinic and Research Institute (US)
  • Istituto Nazionale Tumori IRCCS "Fondazione G. Pascale" (IT)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
  • European Institute of Oncology (IT)
  • University of Siena (IT)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Hôpital Saint-André (FR)
  • Essen University Hospital (DE)
  • Beverly Hills Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes (FR)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Genentech (US)
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG (CH)
  • Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel (DE)
Corresponding author
McArthur, Grant A
Venue
The Lancet Oncology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
323-332
ISSN
1470-2045 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2111404068
Cited by
977
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 86 · 2018: 101 · 2017: 146 · 2016: 122 · 2015: 136 · 2014: 76 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
65.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • Use Siena air (University of Siena) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer Research
  • F. Hoffmann-La Roche
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Melanoma and MAPK Pathways
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Keywords
vemurafenib, BRAF V600E mutation, BRAF V600K mutation, metastatic melanoma, dacarbazine, overall survival, progression-free survival, long-term follow-up, BRAF inhibitors, treatment-naive patients, sensitivity analysis, treatment efficacy and safety, targeted therapy
MeSH terms
Vemurafenib, Adult, Aged, Dacarbazine, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Indoles, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Mutation, Sulfonamides, Disease-Free Survival, Protein Kinase Inhibitors, Proto-Oncogene Proteins B-raf

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