ArticleMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2018
Long-term survival with modern therapeutic agents against metastatic melanoma-vemurafenib and ipilimumab in a daily life setting.
Article in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eosinophils in solid cancers: sentinels, predictors, and therapeutic allies.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2026Review
- Baseline and early changes in eosinophil count and neutrophil-to-eosinophil ratio predict outcomes in metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Prognostic Potential of Baseline Eosinophils at the Initiation of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Treatment of Metastatic Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of skin cancer · 2025Review
- Single-cell transcriptomics and machine learning unveil ferroptosis features in tumor-associated macrophages: Prognostic model and therapeutic strategies for lung adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Spatial adaptation of eosinophils and their emerging roles in homeostasis, infection and disease.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2024Review
- Exosome-based immunotherapy as an innovative therapeutic approach in melanoma.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2024Review
- Eosinophilic granulocytes as a potential prognostic marker for cancer progression and therapeutic response in malignant melanoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- 'Immunotherapeutic Strategies for Intra-cranial Metastatic Melanoma - a Meta-analysis and Systematic Review'.Journal of Cancer · 2024Review
- Exploiting innate immunity for cancer immunotherapy.Molecular cancer · 2023Review
- Eosinophil-lymphocyte interactions in the tumor microenvironment and cancer immunotherapy.Nature immunology · 2022Review
- Anti-tumor treatment and healthcare consumption near death in the era of novel treatment options for patients with melanoma brain metastases.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Looking into a Better Future: Novel Therapies for Metastatic Melanoma.Dermatology and therapy · 2021Review
- Eosinophil prognostic scores for patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma treated with nivolumab.Cancer science · 2021Article
- A new dawn for eosinophils in the tumour microenvironment.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2020Review
- [Personalized medicine in the treatment of periocular tumors : Targeted treatment and use of immune checkpoint inhibitors].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2020Review
- Approaches to decision-making among late-stage melanoma patients: a multifactorial investigation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite new therapeutic options, metastatic melanoma remains to be one of the most fatal tumors. With the development of BRAF inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors, overall survival could be prolonged significantly for the first time. Clinical studies implied that even long-term survival is possible with both types of drugs, but predictive markers are so far missing. In this study, we analyzed survival data from patients that received the first-in-class substances vemurafenib and ipilimumab, respectively, during the time period from registration of the drugs until availability of combination treatments. We aimed to evaluate the possibility of long-term survival in a daily life setting and to characterize patients that benefit from these drugs in order to gain insight into predictive attributes. Eighty patients were evaluated who were treated with either vemurafenib (n = 40) or ipilimumab (n = 40), and overall survival was analyzed. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients who were still alive 24 months after induction of therapy (long-term survival). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.0 months for patients treated with vemurafenib and 10.0 months for patients treated with ipilimumab (log-rank P value = 0.689). Long-term survival was achieved in 32.5% of patients (42.3% vemurafenib, 57.7% ipilimumab). Negative predictors of long-term survival in the vemurafenib group were brain and liver metastases, as well as elevated LDH, S100ß and liver enzymes. For ipilimumab, an increase in lymphocytes and eosinophils during course of treatment correlated with long-term survival. Our real-life experience shows that long-term survival is possible with using both therapeutic agents, vemurafenib and ipilimumab. Pattern of metastases and laboratory values might be of interest in decision making for a specific therapeutic approach. Combination of drugs and observational studies in larger patient cohorts are necessary to further validate our findings.
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.