Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,042

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Prognostic and Clinicopathologic Associations of Oncogenic BRAF in Metastatic Melanoma

Open access
Long, Georgina V., Menzies, Alexander M., Nagrial, Adnan M., Haydu, Lauren E., Hamilton, Anne L., Mann, Graham J., Hughes, T. Michael, Thompson, John F., Scolyer, Richard A., Kefford, Richard F.·2011·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the frequency and type of oncogenic BRAF mutations in metastatic melanoma and correlate BRAF status with clinicopathologic features and outcome. Patients and Methods: Consecutive BRAF-tested Australian patients with metastatic melanoma (n = 197) were observed prospectively. A comprehensive range of clinicopathologic variables were correlated with BRAF mutation status, and a survival analysis was conducted. Results: Forty-eight percent of patients had a BRAF mutation; 70 patients (74%) had V600E, 19 (20%) had V600K, and six (6%) had other genotypes. Other than age at diagnosis of distant metastasis (median age, 56 v 63 years for BRAF-mutant v BRAF wild-type patients, respectively; P < .001), there was no significant difference in clinical features of patients with metastatic melanoma by mutation status. Features of the antecedent primary melanoma significantly associated with a BRAF mutation (P < .05) were histopathologic subtype, presence of mitoses, single or occult primary melanoma, truncal location, and age at diagnosis of primary tumor ≤ 50 years. The interval from diagnosis of first-ever melanoma to distant metastasis was not significantly different between BRAF-mutant and BRAF wild-type patients; however, the median survival of patients with newly diagnosed metastatic melanoma was 5.7 months for BRAF-mutant patients not treated with a BRAF inhibitor, 8.5 months for BRAF wild-type patients, and not reached for BRAF-mutant patients treated with a BRAF inhibitor. Conclusion: V600K mutations comprised 20% of BRAF mutations. Characteristics of the antecedent primary melanoma and age at diagnosis differed in BRAF-mutant and BRAF wild-type patients. The presence of mutant BRAF had no impact on the disease-free interval from diagnosis of first-ever melanoma to first distant metastasis; however, it may have impacted survival thereafter.

Overview

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 · 10.1200/jco.2010.32.4327

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,042

Metadata

Authors
Long, G. V., Menzies, A. M., Nagrial, A. M., Haydu, L. E., Hamilton, A. L., Mann, G. J., Hughes, T. M., Thompson, J. F., Scolyer, R. A., & Kefford, R. F.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2011-04-01
Volume
29
Issue
10
Pages
1239-1246
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2135925159
Cited by
1,042
References
2
FWCI
38.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Prognostic and Clinicopathologic Associations of Oncogenic BRAF in Metastatic Melanoma. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2010.32.4327
The paper
Long, G. V., Menzies, A. M., Nagrial, A. M., Haydu, L. E., Hamilton, A. L., Mann, G. J., Hughes, T. M., Thompson, J. F., Scolyer, R. A., & Kefford, R. F. (2011). Prognostic and Clinicopathologic Associations of Oncogenic BRAF in Metastatic Melanoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2010.32.4327

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.