Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32013269›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2020

The Role of Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Uveal Melanoma.

Anja Wessely, Theresa Steeb, Michael Erdmann, Lucie Heinzerling, Julio Vera, Max Schlaak, Carola Berking, Markus Vincent Heppt

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anja WesselyDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University, Ulmenweg 18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Theresa SteebDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University, Ulmenweg 18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Michael ErdmannDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University, Ulmenweg 18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Lucie HeinzerlingDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University, Ulmenweg 18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Julio VeraDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University, Ulmenweg 18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Max SchlaakDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Frauenlobstr. 9-11, 80337 Munich, Germany.
Carola BerkingDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University, Ulmenweg 18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Markus Vincent HepptDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich Alexander University, Ulmenweg 18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Erlangen · DELMU Klinikum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Uveal melanoma (UM) represents the most common intraocular malignancy in adults and accounts for about 5% of all melanomas. Primary disease can be effectively controlled by several local therapy options, but UM has a high potential for metastatic spread, especially to the liver. Despite its clinical and genetic heterogeneity, therapy of metastatic UM has largely been adopted from cutaneous melanoma (CM) with discouraging results until now. The introduction of antibodies targeting CTLA-4 and PD-1 for immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) has revolutionized the field of cancer therapy and has achieved pioneering results in metastatic CM. Thus, expectations were high that patients with metastatic UM would also benefit from these new therapy options. This review provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview on the role of ICB in UM. We give a summary of UM biology, its clinical features, and how it differs from CM. The results of several studies that have been investigating ICB in metastatic UM are presented. We discuss possible reasons for the lack of efficacy of ICB in UM compared to CM, highlight the pitfalls of ICB in this cancer entity, and explain why other immune-modulating therapies could still be an option for future UM therapies.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalCTLA-4 AntigenHumansIpilimumabMelanomaNivolumabPrognosisProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorUveal MelanomaUveal NeoplasmsAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Agents, ImmunologicalCTLA-4 AntigenCTLA4 protein, humanIpilimumabNivolumabPDCD1 protein, humanpembrolizumabProgrammed Cell Death 1 ReceptorCTLA-4cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigenimmune checkpoint blockadeipilimumabnivolumabocular melanomaPD-1pembrolizumabprogrammed death 1uveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID32013269
PMCPMC7037664
OpenAlexW3003495448

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.