Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36428636›Full record

ArticleCancers2022

Response to First-Line Treatment with Immune-Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Advanced Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Multicenter, Retrospective Analysis from the German ADOReg Registry.

Maximilian Haist, Henner Stege, Berenice Mareen Lang, Aikaterini Tsochataridou, Martin Salzmann, Peter Mohr, Dirk Schadendorf, Selma Ugurel, Jan-Malte Placke, Michael Weichenthal and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 11 institutions in 2 countries.

Maximilian HaistDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6720-7570
Henner StegeDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Berenice Mareen LangDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Aikaterini TsochataridouDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Martin SalzmannDepartment of Dermatology and National Center for Tumor Diseases, University Hospital Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4310-4822
Peter MohrDepartment of Dermatology, Elbe Kliniken Buxtehude, 21614 Buxtehude, Germany.
Dirk SchadendorfDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, 45122 Essen, Germany.
Selma UgurelDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, 45122 Essen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9384-6704
Jan-Malte PlackeDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Essen, 45122 Essen, Germany.
Michael WeichenthalDepartment of Dermatology, Campus Kiel, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein Hospital, 24105 Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9060-4961
Ralf GutzmerDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, Skin Cancer Center Hannover, 30625 Hannover, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7921-2820
Ulrike LeiterCenter of Dermatooncology, Department of Dermatology, Eberhard-Karls-University, 72076 Tuebingen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8019-1577
Martin KaatzDepartment of Dermatology, Wald-Klinikum Gera, 07548 Gera, Germany.
Sebastian HaferkampDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Regensburg, 93053 Regensburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3894-8345
Carola BerkingDepartment of Dermatology, Uniklinikum Erlangen, CCC Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Markus HepptDepartment of Dermatology, Uniklinikum Erlangen, CCC Erlangen-EMN, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4603-1825
Barbara TschechneKRH Klinikum Neustadt am Rübenberge, Specialist for Internal Medicine Hematology and Oncology, 31535 Neustadt, Germany.
Patrick SchummerDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany.
Christoffer GebhardtSkin Cancer Center, Department of Dermatology and Venereology, University Hospital Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), 20246 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7090-9584
Stephan GrabbeDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6863-8719
Carmen LoquaiDepartment of Dermatology, University Medical Center Mainz, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEEssen University Hospital · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEChristian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel · DEElbe Kliniken Stade-Buxtehude · DEHeidelberg University · DESchön Klinik Neustadt · DESRH Wald-Klinikum Gera · DEUniversität Hamburg · DEUniversitätsklinikum Würzburg · DEUniversity Hospital Regensburg · DE

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft Project number: HA 9793/1-1University Medical Center Mainz Intramural research funding
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is a common malignancy of the skin and has an overall favorable outcome, except for patients with an advanced stage of the disease. The efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) for advanced cSCC has been demonstrated in recent clinical studies, but data from real-world cohorts and trial-ineligible cSCC patients are limited. We retrospectively investigated patients with advanced cSCC who have been treated with CPI in a first-line setting at eight German skin cancer centers registered within the multicenter registry ADOReg. Clinical outcome parameters including response, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS), time-to-next-treatment (TTNT), and toxicity were analyzed and have been stratified by the individual immune status. Among 39 evaluable patients, the tumor response rate (rwTRR) was 48.6%, the median PFS was 29.0 months, and the median OS was not reached. In addition, 9 patients showed an impaired immune status due to immunosuppressive medication or hematological diseases. Our data demonstrated that CPI also evoked tumor responses among immunocompromised patients (rwTRR: 48.1 vs. 50.0%), although these responses less often resulted in durable remissions. In line with this, the median PFS (11 vs. 40 months, p = 0.059), TTNT (12 months vs. NR, p = 0.016), and OS (29 months vs. NR, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter for this patient cohort. CPI therapy was well tolerated in both subcohorts with 15% discontinuing therapy due to toxicity. Our real-world data show that first-line CPI therapy produced strong and durable responses among patients with advanced cSCC. Immunocompromised patients were less likely to achieve long-term benefit from anti-PD1 treatment, despite similar tumor response rates.

Indexed as

advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinomacemiplimabcheckpoint inhibitor therapyimmunosuppressionreal-world dataresponse durability

Identifiers

PMID36428636
PMCPMC9688854
OpenAlexW4308909307

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.