ReviewAmerican journal of clinical dermatology2023
Treatment of Recurrent Melanoma Following Adjuvant Therapy.
Review in American journal of clinical dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research progress and molecular mechanism of oridonin in the treatment of malignant melanoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Phase I Study of Fianlimab, a Human Lymphocyte Activation Gene-3 (LAG-3) Monoclonal Antibody, in Combination With Cemiplimab in Advanced Melanoma.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the era of effective therapies in melanoma, notably the widespread use of two types of adjuvant treatments: anti-PD-1 immunotherapies and therapies targeting the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway, for BRAF-mutant patients, an important question arises about how to treat these patients in case of recurrent melanoma following adjuvant therapy. Prospective data are lacking in this area and might be difficult to obtain due to the constant progress being made in the field. Therefore, we reviewed available data suggesting that the initial adjuvant treatment received and the following events provide information about the biology of the disease and the probability of response to following systemic treatments. Thus, in case of relapse during or just after adjuvant anti-PD-1, immune resistance is probable, an anti-PD-1 monotherapy rechallenge has a low likelihood of clinical benefit, and escalation with a combination of immunotherapies should be given priority. In case of relapse during treatment with BRAF plus MEK inhibitors, there may be a risk of lower efficacy of immunotherapy than in naïve patients since this relapse attests not only to a resistance to BRAF-MEK inhibition, but also the introduction of immunotherapy to rescue a progression on targeted therapy. In case of relapse long after adjuvant treatment cessation, whatever the treatment received, no conclusion can be drawn about the efficacy of these drugs, and these patients can be treated like naïve patients. Thus, a combination of anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA4 is probably the best solution, and the following line can be BRAF-MEK inhibitors in BRAF-mutated patients. Finally, in case of recurrent melanoma following adjuvant therapy, given the promising upcoming strategies, inclusion in a clinical trial should be offered as frequently as possible.
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.