ArticleThe British journal of dermatology2025
A national cohort study of melanoma BRAF status, testing patterns, patient and tumour characteristics, treatment and survival in England from 2016 to 2021.
Article in The British journal of dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Testing patterns, patient and tumour characteristics and survival by NRAS and KIT genotype in melanoma.Clinical and experimental dermatology · 2026Article
- An evaluation of pathology foundation models with weakly supervised learning for BRAF mutation prediction in melanoma whole slide images.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInadequacy of testing for melanoma BRAF status results in delayed access to systemic therapy. BRAF mutations and their association with patient/tumour characteristics and survival is poorly understood.
objectivesTo report national data from England on the frequency of molecular BRAF testing; the association of patient/tumour characteristics with BRAF mutations; and the treatment and survival of patients with BRAF mutations.
methodsThis national retrospective cohort study identified all new melanomas and molecular BRAF testing in England diagnosed from 2016 to 2021 using population-based data from the National Disease Registration Service. Multivariate logistic regression determined the association between BRAF testing with patient/tumour characteristics and BRAF genotype with patient/tumour characteristics. Age-standardized net survival analysed melanoma-specific mortality by BRAF genotype.
resultsOf new cases of melanoma, 14% (n = 13 138/91 415) had a BRAF test registered. The proportion of successfully tested tumours that were BRAF-mutated was 34% (n = 4424/13 012). The West Midlands tested the highest proportion of cutaneous tumours (23%; n = 1783/7901) vs. the lowest in Yorkshire and the Humber (11%; n = 856/7760). Female patients [odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-0.86] and those aged > 80 years (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.93) were less likely to be tested for BRAF mutations. BRAF mutations were associated with female gender (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.26). Patients aged > 80 (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.32-0.40) had lower odds of having BRAF-mutated tumours. Patients with BRAF mutations had a lower 5-year net survival [55.9% (95% CI 52.7-59.2) vs. BRAF wildtype 5-year net survival 66.5% (95% CI 62.1-60.1)], particularly in stage II disease.
conclusionsThis study presents the largest dataset on national melanoma BRAF status published to date. The data highlight geographical and demographic variations in BRAF testing and the impact of BRAF mutations on survival rates, particularly in patients with stage II disease. This highlights the critical role of consistent, early and accurate testing to ensure equal care, guide treatment decisions and understand prognosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.