ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023
Interactive process mining of cancer treatment sequences with melanoma real-world data.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge: key insights into efficacy, safety, and personalized strategies in advanced solid tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- An Integrated Predictive Impact-Enhanced Process Mining Framework for Strategic Oncology Workflow Optimization: Case Study in Iran.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Toward value-based care using cost mining: cost aggregation and visualization across the entire colorectal cancer patient pathway.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- The Evaluation of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and BRAF/MEK Inhibitors in Different Therapy Lines for Metastatic Melanoma: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growing availability of clinical real-world data (RWD) represents a formidable opportunity to complement evidence from randomized clinical trials and observe how oncological treatments perform in real-life conditions. In particular, RWD can provide insights on questions for which no clinical trials exist, such as comparing outcomes from different sequences of treatments. To this end, process mining is a particularly suitable methodology for analyzing different treatment paths and their associated outcomes. Here, we describe an implementation of process mining algorithms directly within our hospital information system with an interactive application that allows oncologists to compare sequences of treatments in terms of overall survival, progression-free survival and best overall response. As an application example, we first performed a RWD descriptive analysis of 303 patients with advanced melanoma and reproduced findings observed in two notorious clinical trials: CheckMate-067 and DREAMseq. Then, we explored the outcomes of an immune-checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge after a first progression on immunotherapy versus switching to a BRAF targeted treatment. By using interactive process-oriented RWD analysis, we observed that patients still derive long-term survival benefits from immune-checkpoint inhibitors rechallenge, which could have direct implications on treatment guidelines for patients able to carry on immune-checkpoint therapy, if confirmed by external RWD and randomized clinical trials. Overall, our results highlight how an interactive implementation of process mining can lead to clinically relevant insights from RWD with a framework that can be ported to other centers or networks of centers.
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.