CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 71

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

Inter- and Intra-Patient Heterogeneity of Response and Progression to Targeted Therapy in Metastatic Melanoma

Menzies, Alexander M., Haydu, Lauren E., Carlino, Matteo S., Azer, Mary W. F., Carr, Peter J. A., Kefford, Richard F., Long, Georgina V.·2014·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0085004PMC PMC3882277
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0085004

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 The proportions of categories of response a) by patients (N = 24), b) by metastases (N = 135). Abbreviations: CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease.
Figure 1 The proportions of categories of response a) by patients (N = 24), b) by metastases (N = 135). Abbreviations: CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Inter-patient heterogeneneity of response and progression with CombiDT. Plot of the percent change in the sum of diameters of all metastases ≥5 mm within an individual patient compared to baseline at various time points during treatment with CombiDT until disease progression. Each line represents an individual patient. Abbreviations: E, disease progressing due to existing lesions; N, new lesions; N+E, new and existing lesions; O→, ongoing response without progression; T, treatment ceased due to toxicity.
Figure 2 Inter-patient heterogeneneity of response and progression with CombiDT. Plot of the percent change in the sum of diameters of all metastases ≥5 mm within an individual patient compared to baseline at various time points during treatment with CombiDT until disease progression. Each line represents an individual patient. Abbreviations: E, disease progressing due to existing lesions; N, new lesions; N+E, new and existing lesions; O→, ongoing response without progression; T, treatment ceased due to toxicity.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 The degree of overall best response for each patient by RECIST and ALL metastasis disease assessments.
Figure 3 The degree of overall best response for each patient by RECIST and ALL metastasis disease assessments.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 The best response of each individual metastasis within each patient. Abbrevations: CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease.
Figure 4 The best response of each individual metastasis within each patient. Abbrevations: CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Correlation of the response of individual metastases at first scan versus best response (N = 135).
Figure 5 Correlation of the response of individual metastases at first scan versus best response (N = 135).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Intra-patient heterogeneneity of response and progression with CombiDT. Example plots of the percent change in the diameter of individual metastases within four patients (a-d) compared to baseline at various time points during treatment until overall disease progression. The degree and kinetics of response of individual metastases vary within a patient. Similarly, progression often occurs only in a subset of the overall tumour burden. Patient D had disease progression in new lesions only.
Figure 6 Intra-patient heterogeneneity of response and progression with CombiDT. Example plots of the percent change in the diameter of individual metastases within four patients (a-d) compared to baseline at various time points during treatment until overall disease progression. The degree and kinetics of response of individual metastases vary within a patient. Similarly, progression often occurs only in a subset of the overall tumour burden. Patient D had disease progression in new lesions only.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Intra-patient heterogeneity of disease progression. The number and type of metastases progressing at time of disease progression.
Figure 7 Intra-patient heterogeneity of disease progression. The number and type of metastases progressing at time of disease progression.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. CE Meacham, 2013, Tumour heterogeneity and cancer cell plasticity, Nature, 501, 328, 10.1038/nature12624 · DOI
  2. B Vogelstein, 2013, Cancer genome landscapes, Science, 339, 1546, 10.1126/science.1235122 · DOI · Paper page
  3. M Yancovitz, 2012, Intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity of BRAF(V600E))mutations in primary and metastatic melanoma, PLoS ONE, 7, e29336, 10.1371/journal.pone.0029336 · DOI
  4. M Takata, 2000, Clonal heterogeneity in sporadic melanomas as revealed by loss-of-heterozygosity analysis, Int J Cancer, 85, 492, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0215(20000215)85:4<492::AID-IJC8>3.0.CO;2-# · DOI
  5. J Lin, 2011, Polyclonality of BRAF mutations in primary melanoma and the selection of mutant alleles during progression, British Journal of Cancer, 104, 464, 10.1038/sj.bjc.6606072 · DOI
  6. TM Katona, 2007, Genetically heterogeneous and clonally unrelated metastases may arise in patients with cutaneous melanoma, Am J Surg Pathol, 31, 1029, 10.1097/PAS.0b013e31802b3488 · DOI
  7. JS Wilmott, 2012, Intratumoral Molecular Heterogeneity in a BRAF-Mutant, BRAF Inhibitor-Resistant Melanoma: A Case Illustrating the Challenges for Personalized Medicine, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, 11, 2704, 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-12-0530 · DOI
  8. MR Junttila, 2013, Influence of tumour micro-environment heterogeneity on therapeutic response, Nature, 501, 346, 10.1038/nature12626 · DOI · Paper page
  9. PB Chapman, 2011, Improved survival with vemurafenib in melanoma with BRAF V600E mutation, New England Journal of Medicine, 364, 2507, 10.1056/NEJMoa1103782 · DOI · Paper page
  10. A Hauschild, 2012, Dabrafenib in BRAF-mutated metastatic melanoma: a multicentre, open-label, phase 3 randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 380, 358, 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60868-X · DOI
  11. Kim KB, Flaherty KT, Chapman PB, Sosman JA, Ribas A, <etal>et al</etal>.. (2011) Pattern and outcome of disease progression in phase I study of vemurafenib in patients with metastatic melanoma (MM). Journal of Clinical Oncology 29: (abstract 8519). · DOI
  12. Azer MF, Menzies AM, Haydu LE, Kefford RF, Long GV (2013) Patterns of Response and Progression in Patients with BRAF-mutant Melanoma Metastatic to the Brain treated with Dabrafenib. Cancer: in press. · DOI
  13. EA Eisenhauer, 2009, New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1), European Journal of Cancer, 45, 228, 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.10.026 · DOI · Paper page
  14. GA McArthur, 2012, Marked, homogeneous, and early [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography responses to vemurafenib in BRAF-mutant advanced melanoma, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30, 1628, 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.1938 · DOI
  15. MS Carlino, 2013, (18)F-labelled fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) heterogeneity of response is prognostic in dabrafenib treated BRAF mutant metastatic melanoma, European Journal of Cancer, 49, 395, 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.08.018 · DOI
  16. JS Wilmott, 2012, Selective BRAF inhibitors induce marked T-cell infiltration into human metastatic melanoma, Clinical Cancer Research, 18, 1386, 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2479 · DOI
  17. Chan M, Haydu L, Menzies AM, Azer MWF, Klein O, <etal>et al</etal>.. (2013) Clinical characteristics and survival of BRAF-mutant metastatic melanoma patients treated with BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib or vemurafenib beyond disease progression. Journal of Clinical Oncology 31: (abstract 9062). · DOI
  18. Ackerman A, Klein O, McDermott DF, Lawrence DP, Gunturi A, <etal>et al</etal>.. (2013) Outcomes of patients with metastatic melanoma treated with immunotherapy prior to or after BRAF inhibitors. Cancer: in press. · DOI
  19. PA Ascierto, 2012, Sequencing of BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab in patients with metastatic melanoma: a possible algorithm for clinical use, Journal of Translational Medicine, 10, 107, 10.1186/1479-5876-10-107 · DOI
  20. MS Carlino, 2013, Antiproliferative effects of continued mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway inhibition following acquired resistance to BRAF and/or MEK inhibition in melanoma, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics, 12, 1332, 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0011 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Menzies, A. M., Haydu, L. E., Carlino, M. S., Azer, M. W. F., Carr, P. J. A., Kefford, R. F., & Long, G. V.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2014-01-06
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
e85004
ISSN
1932-6203
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0085004
PMC
PMC3882277
Cited by
71
References
2
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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