Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33724676›Full record

ArticleCancer medicine2021

Evaluation of the modified immune prognostic index to prognosticate outcomes in metastatic uveal melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Michael S Sander, Igor Stukalin, Isabelle A Vallerand, Siddhartha Goutam, Benjamin W Ewanchuk, Daniel E Meyers, Aliyah Pabani, Don G Morris, Daniel Y C Heng, Tina Cheng

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael S SanderCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6250-5368
Igor StukalinTom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Isabelle A VallerandCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Siddhartha GoutamFaculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Benjamin W EwanchukCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Daniel E MeyersTom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7619-7327
Aliyah PabaniTom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Don G MorrisTom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Daniel Y C HengTom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Tina ChengTom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
University of Calgary · CAUniversity of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMetastatic uveal melanoma (MUM) is associated with poor survival and inferior response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy when compared with metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Currently, prognostic biomarkers are lacking to guide treatment decisions. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study using a centralized, province-wide cancer database in Alberta, Canada. We identified 37 patients with histologically confirmed MUM who received at least one dose of single-agent pembrolizumab or nivolumab, or combination therapy nivolumab and ipilimumab. A modified immune prognostic index (IPI), based on the previously reported lung immune prognostic index, was used to stratify patients into favorable and poor IPI groups. Survival analyses were conducted using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for baseline age (≥60) and ECOG performance status, to assess the associations between IPI and overall survival (OS). Time to treatment failure (TTF) was also assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The association between IPI and objective response rate was examined using chi-squared tests. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between IPI and immune-related adverse events (irAEs).

resultsMedian OS was 15.6 (range 0.6-57.6) months with 45.9% 1-year survival rate at a median follow-up of 11.8 months. We found that a favorable IPI was significantly associated with OS [median 30.5 (12.0-not reached) months in the favorable IPI group compared with 4.6 (2.1-16.0) months in the poor IPI group (p = 0.001)] (HR=4.81, 95% CI; 1.64-14.10, p = 0.004), TTF [median 5.1 (95% CI; 2.1-10.4) months in the favorable IPI group compared with 3.7 (95% CI; 1.4-6.4) months in the poor IPI group (p = 0.0191)], and irAE (HR=6.67, 95% CI; 1.32-33.69, p = 0.0220).

conclusionsThe modified IPI may be a useful tool in clinical practice for identifying MUM patients who are more likely to experience irAEs and realize a survival benefit from ICI treatment.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleHumansImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsKaplan-Meier EstimateL-Lactate DehydrogenaseLymphocyte CountMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedNeutrophilsPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUveal MelanomaUveal NeoplasmsImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsL-Lactate Dehydrogenasebiomarkersmelanomaprognosisprognostic factorsurvival

Identifiers

PMID33724676
PMCPMC8026925
OpenAlexW3139103780

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.