Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34198950›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Toxicity, Response and Survival in Older Patients with Metastatic Melanoma Treated with Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Nienke A de Glas, Esther Bastiaannet, Frederiek van den Bos, Simon P Mooijaart, Astrid A M van der Veldt, Karlijn P M Suijkerbuijk, Maureen J B Aarts, Franchette W P J van den Berkmortel, Christian U Blank, Marye J Boers-Sonderen and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Immunotherapy: should we worry about immunosenescence?Ageing and cancer research & treatment · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cutaneous Oncology: Strategies for Melanoma Prevention, Diagnosis, and Therapy.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
    Review
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

22 authors.

Nienke A de GlasDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8350-4252
Esther BastiaannetDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Frederiek van den BosDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Simon P MooijaartDepartment of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Astrid A M van der VeldtDepartment of Medical Oncology and Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, 3015 GD Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Karlijn P M SuijkerbuijkDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3604-5430
Maureen J B AartsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Maastricht University Medical Center, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Franchette W P J van den BerkmortelDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zuyderland Medical Center, 6162 BG Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.
Christian U BlankDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Marye J Boers-SonderenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Alfonsus J M van den EertweghDepartment of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jan-Willem B de GrootIsala Oncology Center, 8025 AB Zwolle, The Netherlands.
John B A G HaanenDepartment of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Geke A P HospersDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zuyderland Medical Center, 6162 BG Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.
Hilde JalvingDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zuyderland Medical Center, 6162 BG Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9142-9050
Djura PiersmaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Zuyderland Medical Center, 6162 BG Sittard-Geleen, The Netherlands.
Rozemarijn S van RijnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Medical Center Leeuwarden, 8934 AD Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Albert J Ten TijeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Amphia Ziekenhuis, 4818 CK Breda, The Netherlands.
Gerard VreugdenhilDepartment of Medical Oncology, 5504 DB Veldhoven, The Netherlands.
Michel W J M WoutersDutch Institute for Clinical Auditing, 2333 AA Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6173-0662
Johanneke E A PortieljeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5169-6306
Ellen W KapiteijnDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4814-6426

Funding

ZonMw 09150161810003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrevious trials suggest no differences in immunotherapy treatment between older and younger patients, but mainly young patients with a good performance status were included. The aim of this study was to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of "real-world" older patients with metastatic melanoma and to identify predictors of outcome.

methodsWe included patients aged ≥65 years with metastatic melanoma from the Dutch Melanoma Treatment Registry. We described the reasons for hospital admissions and treatment discontinuation. Additionally, we assessed predictors of toxicity and response using logistic regression models and survival using Cox regression models.

resultsWe included 2216 patients. Grade ≥3 toxicity was not associated with age, comorbidities or WHO status. Patients aged ≥75 discontinued treatment due to toxicity more often, resulting in fewer treatment cycles. Response rates were similar to previous trials (40.3% and 43.6% in patients aged 65-75 and ≥75, respectively, for anti-PD1 treatment) and did not decrease with age or comorbidity. Melanoma-specific survival was not affected by age or comorbidity.

conclusionResponse rates and toxicity outcomes of checkpoint inhibitors did not change with increasing age or comorbidity. However, the impact of grade I-II toxicity on quality of life deserves further study as older patients discontinue treatment more frequently.

Indexed as

geriatric oncologyimmunotherapymelanomaolder adultsresponsetoxicity

Identifiers

PMID34198950
PMCPMC8201158

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.