ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2016
Clinical use of ipilimumab for metastatic melanoma in Spain: towards a more consistent approach.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIpilimumab has been approved in patients with advanced melanoma by different regulatory bodies worldwide, but its use in clinical practice is not fully consistent among oncologists. We have surveyed a representative sample of Spanish medical oncologists on issues related to the use of ipilimumab. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe survey was based on the Delphi method, where experts respond anonymously to two rounds of a questionnaire. Questionnaire consisted of 42 statements divided among the following eight categories: Pathology and Diagnosis; Patterns of Response; Parameters affecting Treatment Selection; Patient Profile; Sequencing of Treatment; Definition of Long-Term Survivors; Quality of Life; Concept of Immuno-oncology. The experts were asked to rate each statement on a scale of 1-9, where 1 meant "completely disagree" and 9 meant "completely agree".
resultsThirty-three oncologists responded to both rounds of the survey (62.3 % of total surveyed). On issues related to pathology and diagnosis, patterns of response, and immuno-oncology, the specialists reached a high level of consensus. There was also a high level of agreement, albeit without consensus on assessment of BRAF mutations before deciding on treatment with ipilimumab. However, there was a lower level of agreement on sequencing treatment with BRAF inhibitors and ipilimumab, on predictive factors, on the use of corticosteroids, and on patient quality of life.
conclusionsThe disparity in many of these topics suggests that oncologists need more information on certain aspects of ipilimumab treatment. We need to define generally accepted algorithms of treatment, especially with regard to issues that were shown to be controversial or unclear.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.