4.6 Article

BRAFV600 variant allele frequency predicts outcome in metastatic melanoma patients treated with BRAF and MEK inhibitors

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.19281

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The prognostic impact of variant allele frequency (VAF) on clinical outcome in metastatic melanoma patients receiving BRAF and MEK inhibitors is still unclear. This study found that high VAF is an independent poor prognostic factor in these patients.
BackgroundThe prognostic impact of variant allele frequency (VAF) on clinical outcome in BRAFV600 mutated metastatic melanoma patients (MMPs) receiving BRAF (BRAFi) and MEK inhibitors (MEKi) is unclear. Materials and MethodsA cohort of MMPs receiving first line BRAFi and MEKi was identified by inspecting dedicated databases of three Italian Melanoma Intergroup centres. VAF was determined by next generation sequencing in pre-treatment baseline tissue samples. Correlation between VAF and BRAF copy number variation was analysed in an ancillary study by using a training and a validation cohort of melanoma tissue samples and cell lines. ResultsOverall, 107 MMPs were included in the study. The VAF cut-off determined by ROC curve was 41.3%. At multivariate analysis, progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly shorter in patients with M1c/M1d [HR 2.25 (95% CI 1.41-3.6, p < 0.01)], in those with VAF >41.3% [HR 1.62 (95% CI 1.04-2.54, p < 0.05)] and in those with ECOG PS & GE;1 [HR 1.82 (95% CI 1.15-2.88, p < 0.05)]. Overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter in patients with M1c/M1d [HR 2.01 (95% CI 1.25-3.25, p < 0.01)]. Furthermore, OS was shorter in patients with VAF >41.3% [HR 1.46 (95% CI 0.93-2.29, p = 0.06)] and in patients with ECOG PS & GE;1 [HR 1.52 (95% CI 0.94-2.87, p = 0.14)]. BRAF gene amplification was found in 11% and 7% of samples in the training and validation cohort, respectively. ConclusionsHigh VAF is an independent poor prognostic factor in MMP receiving BRAFi and MEKi. High VAF and BRAF amplification coexist in 7%-11% of patients.

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