Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31179139›Full record

ArticleCase reports in oncological medicine2019

Nivolumab and Ipilimumab in the Treatment of Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: A Single-Center Experience.

Vidhya Karivedu, Ihab Eldessouki, Ahmad Taftaf, Zheng Zhu, Abouelmagd Makramalla, Nagla Abdel Karim

Erratum issuedAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Case reports in oncological medicine, 2019. 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 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Uveal melanoma: Recent advances in immunotherapy.World journal of clinical oncology · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The Role of Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Uveal Melanoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  10. Uveal melanoma: progress in molecular biology and therapeutics.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Vidhya KariveduDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3109-8410
Ihab EldessoukiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1325-2579
Ahmad TaftafDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2754-051X
Zheng ZhuDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Department of Environmental Health, College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0271-3365
Abouelmagd MakramallaDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5762-2976
Nagla Abdel KarimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Medical College of Georgia-Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5112-5100

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) is associated with a poor prognosis, with a median overall survival (OS) of 4-15 months. Despite new insights into the genetic and molecular background of MUM, satisfactory systemic treatment approaches are currently lacking. The study results of innovative treatment strategies are urgently needed. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis was a retrospective case series of 8 patients with MUM managed at the University of Cincinnati between January 2015 and January 2018. The immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (irRECIST) 1.1 criteria were used for patient evaluation, and magnetic resonance imaging was used for evaluation at treatment checkpoints.

objectiveTo assess the clinical outcome of patients with MUM treated with a combination of checkpoint inhibitors.

resultsThe series included eight patients, six men and two women, with MUM. Their median age at MUM diagnosis was 69 (range, 55-77) years. All patients were treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab combination along with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), followed by nivolumab maintenance and monthly TACE procedures. The majority of patients had a partial response or stable disease. Two of the patients had partial response, while four others had stable disease. Two other patients experienced disease progression.

conclusionWe report the outcomes of eight patients with MUM treated with the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab. We report the clinical outcome and toxicity associated with this treatment approach. Further studies are warranted to explore immunotherapy in MUM. These findings support the consideration of immunotherapy in MUM.

Identifiers

PMID31179139
PMCPMC6501230

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.