ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Demographics, Pattern of Care, and Outcome Analysis of Malignant Melanomas - Experience From a Tertiary Cancer Centre in India.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Melanoma in Peru: 1000 patients and 10 years of experience.PloS one · 2025Article
- Not so 'rare'-an example of malignant melanoma in India: report from a tertiary cancer centre.Ecancermedicalscience · 2021Article
- Pediatric Melanoma Arising in a Background of Melanocytic Nevi.Indian dermatology online journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment of malignant melanoma has undergone a paradigm shift with the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and targeted therapies. However, access to ICI is limited in low-middle income countries (LMICs). PATIENTS AND
methodsHistologically confirmed malignant melanoma cases registered from 2013 to 2019 were analysed for pattern of care, safety, and efficacy of systemic therapies (ST).
resultsThere were 659 patients with a median age of 53 (range 44-63) years; 58.9% were males; 55.2% were mucosal melanomas. Most common primary sites were extremities (36.6%) and anorectum (31.4%). Nearly 10.8% of the metastatic cohort were BRAF mutated. Among 368 non-metastatic patients (172 prior treated, 185 de novo, and 11 unresectable), with a median follow-up of 26 months (0-83 months), median EFS and OS were 29.5 (95% CI: 22-40) and 33.3 (95% CI: 29.5-41.2) months, respectively. In the metastatic cohort, with a median follow up of 24 (0-85) months, the median EFS for BSC was 3.1 (95% CI 1.9-4.8) months versus 3.98 (95% CI 3.2-4.7) months with any ST (HR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.52-0.92; P = 0.011). The median OS was 3.9 (95% CI 3.3-6.4) months for BSC alone versus 12.0 (95% CI 10.5-15.1) months in any ST (HR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.28-0.50; P < 0.001). The disease control rate was 51.55%. Commonest grade 3-4 toxicity was anemia with chemotherapy (9.5%) and ICI (8.8%). In multivariate analysis, any ST received had a better prognostic impact in the metastatic cohort.
conclusionsLarge real-world data reflects the treatment patterns adopted in LMIC for melanomas and poor access to expensive, standard of care therapies. Other systemic therapies provide meaningful clinical benefit and are worth exploring especially when the standard therapies are challenging to administer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.