Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33262254›Full record

ArticleJournal for immunotherapy of cancer2020

Comprehensive analysis of cutaneous and uveal melanoma liver metastases.

Esmee P Hoefsmit, Elisa A Rozeman, Trieu My Van, Petros Dimitriadis, Oscar Krijgsman, Jordan W Conway, Ines Pires da Silva, Jacqueline E van der Wal, Steven L C Ketelaars, Kaspar Bresser and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal for immunotherapy of cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. The Roles of PTEN in Melanoma Suppression.Pigment cell & melanoma research · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

21 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Esmee P HoefsmitMolecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3989-8175
Elisa A RozemanMedical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Trieu My VanMolecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Petros DimitriadisMolecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Oscar KrijgsmanMolecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jordan W ConwayMelanoma Institute Australia, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ines Pires da SilvaMelanoma Institute Australia, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jacqueline E van der WalDepartment of Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Steven L C KetelaarsMolecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Kaspar BresserMolecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Annegien BroeksCore Facility and Biobanking, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ron M KerkhovenNKI Genomics Core Facility, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jason W ReevesNanoString Technologies Inc, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Sarah WarrenNanoString Technologies Inc, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Pia KvistborgMolecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Richard A ScolyerMelanoma Institute Australia, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8991-0013
Ellen W KapiteijnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Daniel S PeeperMolecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Georgina V LongMelanoma Institute Australia, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8894-3545
Ton N M SchumacherMolecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Christian U BlankMolecular Oncology & Immunology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands c.blank@nki.nl.
The Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLMelanoma Institute Australia · AUNanostring Technologies (United States) · USLeiden University Medical Center · NLRoyal North Shore Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe profound disparity in response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) by cutaneous melanoma (CM) and uveal melanoma (UM) patients is not well understood. Therefore, we characterized metastases of CM and UM from the same metastatic site (liver), in order to dissect the potential underlying mechanism in differential response on ICB.

methodsTumor liver samples from CM (n=38) and UM (n=28) patients were analyzed at the genomic (whole exome sequencing), transcriptional (RNA sequencing) and protein (immunohistochemistry and GeoMx Digital Spatial Profiling) level.

resultsComparison of CM and UM metastases from the same metastatic site revealed that, although originating from the same melanocyte lineage, CM and UM differed in somatic mutation profile, copy number profile, tumor mutational burden (TMB) and consequently predicted neoantigens. A higher melanin content and higher expression of the melanoma differentiation antigen MelanA was observed in liver metastases of UM patients. No difference in B2M and human leukocyte antigen-DR (HLA-DR) expression was observed. A higher expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) was found in CM compared with UM liver metastases, although the majority of CM and UM liver metastases lacked PD-L1 expression. There was no difference in the extent of immune infiltration observed between CM and UM metastases, with the exception of a higher expression of CD163 (p<0.0001) in CM liver samples. While the extent of immune infiltration was similar for CM and UM metastases, the ratio of exhausted CD8 T cells to cytotoxic T cells, to total CD8 T cells and to Th1 cells, was significantly higher in UM metastases.

conclusionsWhile TMB was different between CM and UM metastases, tumor immune infiltration was similar. The greater dependency on PD-L1 as an immune checkpoint in CM and the identification of higher exhaustion ratios in UM may both serve as explanations for the difference in response to ICB. Consequently, in order to improve current treatment for metastatic UM, reversal of T cell exhaustion beyond programmed cell death 1 blockade should be considered.

Indexed as

Cutaneous Malignant MelanomaFemaleHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMelanomaRetrospective StudiesSkin NeoplasmsUveal MelanomaUveal Neoplasmsimmunityimmunotherapymelanomatranslational medical researchtumor microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID33262254
PMCPMC7713183
OpenAlexW3107542590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.